Is "god" LIKELY to exist?

[Zzyzx]

.
A religionist who realizes (perhaps after some debate experience), that there is no evidence other than ancient tales, conjectures and opinions to support a claim of existence for their favorite "god" in debate, may refine their claims for existence to "god is likely to exist".

Questions for debate:

1. Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

2. On what basis can the likelihood of "god's" existence be evaluated?

[Zzyzx]

.

I did answer your question. I am sure any readers who read all the posts can see that.

Did you "answer" the question by citing a non-authoritative source and repeating your personal, unverified opinion?

Does that constitute an answer, in debate, in accord with Forum Rules and Guidelines, in your estimation?

[Flail]

Skyangel wrote:

The God that is most likely to exist is the God described in the bible.

Upon what basis do you accept the unverified opinions of 'bible writers' as your unverified opinion? Why do you not accept the unverified opinons of the writings as to the Greek God Zeus as your unverified opinion as to the existence of a 'god'? Upon what evidence do you distinguish the unverified and vastly differing opinons as to the existence of any of the numerous proposed 'gods'?

[Skyangel]

Because the bible describes people as gods and people are real and exist.

What!? Care to explain how people are Gods?

At the risk of repeating myself like some broken record,
The word God in Gen1:1 is 'elohiym. That word is a plural word in Hebrew.
The meaning can be found http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... H430&t=KJV

The meaning includes rulers, judges, messengers.
Rulers, judges and messengers are all people.

People rule over things and other people. That makes us rulers.
People judge things and others constantly. That makes us judges.
People convey messages to each other through various ways of communication. That makes us messengers of those messages.
People as a whole group can do anything they decide to do.
People can create things. That makes us creators.
People as a whole including the ones who are dead and those who have not been born yet have all the same attributes that are attributes of God in the bible stories.
People are past present and future at the same time. They were, they are and they are to come. They are all over the world even in the "wind" or "air" which carries our voices and our pictures to each other via light and sound waves etc.
People can do "miracles" if they set their minds to it. They can even create new people in their own image. WOW , fancy that.

[Skyangel]

.

I did answer your question. I am sure any readers who read all the posts can see that.

Did you "answer" the question by citing a non-authoritative source and repeating your personal, unverified opinion?

Does that constitute an answer, in debate, in accord with Forum Rules and Guidelines, in your estimation?

A logical answer constitutes an acceptable answer according to debate rules.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

If people cannot follow my logic, I can't help it. That is their problem not mine. The answer is still logical.

[Skyangel]

Skyangel wrote:

The God that is most likely to exist is the God described in the bible.

Upon what basis do you accept the unverified opinions of 'bible writers' as your unverified opinion? Why do you not accept the unverified opinions of the writings as to the Greek God Zeus as your unverified opinion as to the existence of a 'god'? Upon what evidence do you distinguish the unverified and vastly differing opinons as to the existence of any of the numerous proposed 'gods'?

Upon the basis of the logic that the bible is a metaphorical book full of parables and allegories and the fact that I do not simply accept it at face value but I understand the metaphors and allegories, obviously better than most people do. I understand the treasure is inside the treasure chest not on the surface of the treasure chest.

Too many people look at the "seaweed" and "slime" etc on the outside of the treasure chest and never open it to see what is actually inside it because they think it is some worthless dirty box which is nothing but useless garbage so they throw it out without looking any deeper than outward appearances. Those people miss out on the treasure because they are too busy judging the book by its cover.

The story of Zeus or any other mythological stories of gods can also be seen as metaphoric of people and their attitudes.

[ksed]

.
A religionist who realizes (perhaps after some debate experience), that there is no evidence other than ancient tales, conjectures and opinions to support a claim of existence for their favorite "god" in debate, may refine their claims for existence to "god is likely to exist".

Questions for debate:

1. Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

2. On what basis can the likelihood of "god's" existence be evaluated?

There's good reason to believe that god exists. And theists have offered a number of them.

For example, the universe had a beginning to its existence. This points to a beginner. This has been confirmed by scientific observations, such as the red-shift of galaxies and the microwave background radiation. (This is the traditional cosmological argument coupled with scientific evidence).

We also have numerous philosophical arguments for gods existence: the argument from reason, the argument from desire, the argument from objective morality, and others.

As to which god were talking about, while the cosmological argument gets us to a cause of the universe, in the process, it both affirms what kind of god could bring the universe into existence, while at the same time eliminating other concepts of god.
A god who could create the universe would have to be very powerful and very knowledgeable. This god would also have to be beyond space, time, and matter, since space, time and matter came into existence at the beginning point.

So, pantheistic styled gods are eliminated. And monotheistic gods are in the running. As to which monotheistic god, this requires further argument.

[ksed]

.
A religionist who realizes (perhaps after some debate experience), that there is no evidence other than ancient tales, conjectures and opinions to support a claim of existence for their favorite "god" in debate, may refine their claims for existence to "god is likely to exist".

Questions for debate:

1. Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

2. On what basis can the likelihood of "god's" existence be evaluated?

There's good reason to believe that god exists. And theists have offered a number of them.

For example, the universe had a beginning to its existence. This points to a beginner. This has been confirmed by scientific observations, such as the red-shift of galaxies and the microwave background radiation. (This is the traditional cosmological argument coupled with scientific evidence).

We also have numerous philosophical arguments for gods existence: the argument from reason, the argument from desire, the argument from objective morality, and others.

As to which god were talking about, while the cosmological argument gets us to a cause of the universe, in the process, it both affirms what kind of god could bring the universe into existence, while at the same time eliminating other concepts of god.
A god who could create the universe would have to be very powerful and very knowledgeable. This god would also have to be beyond space, time, and matter, since space, time and matter came into existence at the beginning point.

So, pantheistic styled gods are eliminated. And monotheistic gods are in the running. As to which monotheistic god, this requires further argument.

[Slopeshoulder]

.
A religionist who realizes (perhaps after some debate experience), that there is no evidence other than ancient tales, conjectures and opinions to support a claim of existence for their favorite "god" in debate, may refine their claims for existence to "god is likely to exist".

Questions for debate:

1. Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

2. On what basis can the likelihood of "god's" existence be evaluated?

I'll play.
1. Based on evidence and probability, I must remain mute. I lack the expertise to make a judgment. But something about saying yes strikes me as unsupportable, wheareas saying no strikes me as reductionistic. So, I'd rather not say (and I mean that in the sense of the later Wittgenstein)
Of the gods many proposed, I'm going with Yahweh or Clapton. If you include goddesses, an I'm going with Isis or Mrs. Slopeshoulder.

2. As a Romantic, non-cognitive, postmodern, and somewhat fideistic sort, I nominate aesthetics as the most reasonable and useful method of discernment in this case (and recall that aesthetics is a branch of ethics, according to Aristotle). I find faith, a tilting toward god, to be a creative act, an ultimately imaginative leaning-into, a way of (co-)creating meaning and of orienting. In other words, I find it to be beautiful, and it's alternative to be ugly, perhaps obscene. However, I must immediately recognize that someone, for instance a buddhist scientist, could tell me that the world we see is all there is and it provides sufficient grounds for joy, meaning, and beauty. I get that, but I don't live it...yet.

[bernee51]

.
A religionist who realizes (perhaps after some debate experience), that there is no evidence other than ancient tales, conjectures and opinions to support a claim of existence for their favorite "god" in debate, may refine their claims for existence to "god is likely to exist".

Questions for debate:

1. Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

2. On what basis can the likelihood of "god's" existence be evaluated?

There's good reason to believe that god exists. And theists have offered a number of them.

What are offered are reasons in support of the concept of gods...none speak to that concept being an extant reality.

For example, the universe had a beginning to its existence.

Correction " the universe, as we observe it, has the appearance of having begun to exist.

This points to a beginner.

This points to a change in state.

Is there any reason to dismiss the possibility that the universe, in some shape or form, has always existed and will always exist?

This has been confirmed by scientific observations, such as the red-shift of galaxies and the microwave background radiation. (This is the traditional cosmological argument coupled with scientific evidence).

That the universe, as we observe it appears to have come into existence, is what the evidence suggests.

We also have numerous philosophical arguments for gods existence: the argument from reason, the argument from desire, the argument from objective morality, and others.[

These support BELIEF in god, not the existence of god.

As to which god were talking about, while the cosmological argument gets us to a cause of the universe, in the process, it both affirms what kind of god could bring the universe into existence, while at the same time eliminating other concepts of god.

This is a case of question begging or assuming the precedent.

A god who could create the universe would have to be very powerful and very knowledgeable. This god would also have to be beyond space, time, and matter, since space, time and matter came into existence at the beginning point.

This is built on an assumption that is not validated.

For as start " can you prove that time exists?

So, pantheistic styled gods are eliminated. And monotheistic gods are in the running. As to which monotheistic god, this requires further argument.

Concepts of god are all you have shown to be possible.

Got anything on the extant reality of any god?

[Stooti]

Because the bible describes people as gods and people are real and exist.

What!? Care to explain how people are Gods?

At the risk of repeating myself like some broken record,
The word God in Gen1:1 is 'elohiym. That word is a plural word in Hebrew.
The meaning can be found http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... H430&t=KJV

The meaning includes rulers, judges, messengers.
Rulers, judges and messengers are all people.

People rule over things and other people. That makes us rulers.
People judge things and others constantly. That makes us judges.
People convey messages to each other through various ways of communication. That makes us messengers of those messages.
People as a whole group can do anything they decide to do.
People can create things. That makes us creators.
People as a whole including the ones who are dead and those who have not been born yet have all the same attributes that are attributes of God in the bible stories.
People are past present and future at the same time. They were, they are and they are to come. They are all over the world even in the "wind" or "air" which carries our voices and our pictures to each other via light and sound waves etc.
People can do "miracles" if they set their minds to it. They can even create new people in their own image. WOW , fancy that.

But one fact totally demolishes all of the above.
People are not perfect. There is sin in the world and God by definition must be perfect.
God
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."
Right? Yes, right.
But, if we completeley and utterly reject what I just stated and be stubborn, couldn't ants be considered Gods? Anyway, I'm sorry but I see no logic in your 'statements'.
This topic is called "Is "god" LIKELY to exist". I find it hard to believe that you use what we are debating to use as a source. You are talking about what God 'says' but we are talking about if God is likely to exist?
If people (you) cannot follow my logic, I can't help it. That is their (your) problem not mine. The answer is still logical.