Does a god exist outside of the abstract realm of thoughts and ideas?

---

Clarification of Question by adrianv-ga on 31 Oct 2002 23:57 PST

please visit:

https://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=94562

Please don't request question clarification if you do not understand the question.

---

Clarification of Question by adrianv-ga on 31 Oct 2002 23:58 PST

That should read, please request question clarification if you do not
understand the question.

Hi, 

By definition God, is omnipotent, infinite, and the unification of all
things. Really it doesn't matter which religion you look to, at some
point this is the definition of God. God is, that which is. This is
not an abstract idea, it's just the basic principle of what humans
believe God to be, without all the dogma attached to it.

If this is so, then God must exist, and if it is not so, then we do
not exist. Since I'm pretty sure that I exist, and I'm also equally
sure that you exist, because you are reading this, and since neither
one of us is the unification of all things, then I must conclude that
God exists and neither one of us is God.

Thanks, 

webadept-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by adrianv-ga on 01 Nov 2002 05:12 PST

You can try again, or I can give you a one star rating.  I don't think
you visited the other question link I provided, or asked for question
clarification when you really needed too.  I think all of the comments
more thought out than your answer.  If you ever see another question
of this nature, think a little harder before answering please.  And if
I'm the one asking the question, please don't even attempt to answer
it.

---

Clarification of Answer by webadept-ga on 01 Nov 2002 09:45 PST

No, I read the question you referred to, in fact I read it from the
start and even followed it with some amusement. The idea there is that
God exists because someone thinks he does, and if suddenly everyone
quit believing in God's existence, to the point of even thinking
enough about it to deny God's existence, God would suddenly vanish in
a puff of logic. Well thought out and rather fun to read. I like
puzzle games like that, and hailstorm-ga has a really sharp mind.
But..

What that logic suggests is that we created God in our own image. This
logic works fine for the Great Pumpkin, or the Easter Bunny, but it
doesn't work for God. Why, rather simple, anything created in that
fashion doesn't qualify for the job. Not because of any dogmatic
reasoning, but because there is a limit to that being, and if there is
a limit to God, then it is not the God you refer to in your question,
pervious or here. I point to the Clarification for the question "Which
God?" you responded "Does God exist?" so that is the One and All
Powerful God of Everyone's understanding. By not defining you accept
all definition.

The logic also suggests that God is Mortal. If he can be undone in any
fashion, then he has mortality. Which again is fine for the Great
Pumpkin, but not something called God.

A God with limitations is not God, just a really big, powerful guy who
can possibly make your life good or bad. The previous answer is right,
only because God does exist in abstract thought (as well), but is
neither added too nor subtracted from because of our belief, since
1,000,000 minus infinite is still infinite.

So, to answer your question more clearly, I would have to ask a simple
clarification from you. What is God?

webadept-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by adrianv-ga on 01 Nov 2002 10:34 PST

As defined by me, god is the being or beings that is ultimately
responsible for my existance.

---

Clarification of Answer by webadept-ga on 01 Nov 2002 13:47 PST

Hi again, 

The basis of your definition would seem to then propose we must now
prove your existence, and so starts the dance. Thankfully this is not
the case, as God's existence, by your definition, is not dependent on
your own. If it was, God would then have a mortality, and this can not
be so, whether you exist or not. Like algebra we simply take you out
of the equation.

If you exist, and by your definition "god is the being or beings that
is ultimately responsible for my existence", God(s) is all, refer to
my original answer. Your existence is dependent on all things both
large and small. The air you breath, the planet you live on, the dark
matter and void of space, as well  as "first causation". "Ultimately
responsible", contains the beginning, the now and the final end of
you. Your existence as a physical form, mental state, and spiritual
manifestation are all related to what makes you "you". Everything is
required to be exactly the way it is for you to be who you are at this
moment. Since you are you, then God(s) exist outside the realm of mere
logical thought.

If you do not exist, then, by your definition, God exists for exactly
the same reasons.

webadept-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by adrianv-ga on 01 Nov 2002 14:33 PST

Can you answer the question without using your presumptious opinion
that god is the "unification of all things", or that god is "that
which is", or that this is the "basic principle of what humans believe
god to be" or that "god is all"?

---

Clarification of Answer by webadept-ga on 01 Nov 2002 18:34 PST

I was about to add to this, but decided to check and see if there were
other limitations or boundries you wanted to place on the answer
before I did. Your last post changes the topic quite a bit, when put
against your definition of what God(s) is. So, anything else?

P.S. don't expect reply until Saturday evening, I've got commitments
tonight and most of the day Saturday. But I'll check back and prepare
something for you and do a bit of study while I'm out.

Thanks,

listen forget about it, I'm going to join a convent...maybe i'll find
an answer in my silence...

My religion's definition of God does not include "the unification of
all things".  It would probably be a lot closer to the dictionary
definition:

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator
and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship
in monotheistic religions."
(source: The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition)

Sure, a monistic definition of God makes for a really easy proof that
God exists ... it just turns God into "everything", and obviously
everything exists.  But unfortunately that isn't really the point of
monotheistic religions.

Really? So him stating that he is the Alpha and the Omega. the I AM,
and that part where it says, In the beginning there was God, is not a
unification of all things?

I'm not trying to aruge with anyone on this subject, but the
monotheist was really the last religon I thought would find objection
to that statment. Hindus, Budists and even some of the trible religons
might have a argument or two in there, but monotheist? At which point
in the bible does God, or Jesus suggest that there is something other
than God? I would really like to know that.. maybe I'll post a
question here and find out.

Thanks, 

webadept-ga

Unless you are god yourself, how can one possibly verify the existence
of god or otherwise (p/s - should I be using the capital "G" when
addressing him (Him) or is it her (Her) or maybe it (It)?). It seems
to me that this question is a preoccupation unique only to human
beings. In that we can "stand outside" ourselves, be conscious of our
consciousness and ask all these abstract questions and drive ourselves
crazy over the answers. Indeed we had gone and are still going to war
over whose god is more superior or is THE god. Does it matter? I
suppose so, if our eternity is at stake. Yet, after centuries we are 
still arguing over the same issue.

Then again, none of us speaks or understands the barkings of the dogs,
the meowings of the cats or the chirpings of birds to know for sure
whether indeed if they too are asking the very same question as us?

webadept,

Are you really sure you exist?

Mengzi dreamed he was a butterfly. When he awoke he said, "How do I
know I am Mengzi who dreamed he was a butterfly, and not a butterfly
dreaming it is Mengzi?"

Q:
"Mengzi dreamed he was a butterfly. When he awoke he said, "How do I
know I am Mengzi who dreamed he was a butterfly, and not a butterfly
dreaming it is Mengzi?"

A:
Mengzi simply waits to see who becomes extinct first.

Nor ypu can say He exists. Nor you can say He does not exist.

Vedas of hinduism.

Did anybody think about asking God himself in all of this?

Normally we have a question where somebody needs to verify a fact with
a third party and somebody like missy-ga will actually get on the
phone and verify the facts before answering. Seems that if someone
actually asked God whether he exists we could save a lot of time.

I'm not sure how we could verify that he did actually acknowledge his
existance to the researcher, but then again we don't have ultimate
proof that other researchers actually contacted the source of their
information.

With something as all-important as determining the existence of a
deity - I would ask God myself rather than farming the question out to
an internet guru.

But that's just my $0.02

calebu2-ga

Well, this answer may not be as smart as all the others here, but it's
the best I can come up with. As far as I can tell, the universe,
before the "big bang", had to start from something. I suppose you
could say that the universe, in its infinateness, has always been. Of
course, most people (myself included) can't eally wrap their brain
around the concept of infinity. So let's say that it had to start from
something, and not only that, but every rule of nature down to the
last atom was defined either at the big bang or within seconds of it.
Now, who's got the time to go and make up all the physical laws of the
universe? I know I don't. Also, how do you make a universe from
nothing? Even Betty Crocker can't help you there. But we know that it
happened, one way or another. Well, if I was looking for God, the
creator of the universe might be the first place I'd check. And I'm
not saying you have to go by the book of Genesis or anything. After
all, who are we to tell God how long a day is? Anyway, I'm not sure
you are ever going to find a particular answer that satisfies you
until one day you just *know*, one way or the other. After all, our
own brains are still somewhat of a mystery. I heard a great saying
about that once, that you can flip around and in a way apply to your
question about God: If our brains were simple enough to be easily
understood, humans would be too simple to understand them. So I guess
you could say if the last great mysteries of the universe were simple
enough to be easily understood, would it be too simple to have formed
us? Anyway, have a great day, and I hope you find the answer you are
looking for.

Surely the question was asking for a series of debates on the subject,
for and against in different websites. Not simply the opinion of the
answerer.
webadept is clearly answering this question in an unproffesional and
inappropriate way, and attempting to convert instead of answer.

>>Surely the question was asking for a series of debates on the
subject,
for and against in different websites. <<

LOL!

The question was most definitely not a request for website links or
URLs that contain debates on the topic. And if it was, his question
should have actually included the words "websites" and "debates." To
say nothing of his clarifications.

Am I the only one who thinks that accepting unanswerable questions
undermines the entire Google Answers framework?

Also, can somebody explain to me what this means:

"Please don't request question clarification if you do not understand
the question."

If a researcher understands the question, why would he need to ask for
a clarification? Does Google Answers not allow researchers to ask for
clarification if they don't understand a question?

mara-ga, please see my second clarification of the question.

mara-ga, stating that this answer is unanswerable is an acceptable
answer for me, and probably one of the only answers i would have
accepted without further clarification.

adrianv writes:

"As defined by me, god is the being or beings that is ultimately
responsible for my existance."

Then by your definition, your parents are your gods! :-)

hailstorm-ga, actually with the use of the word ultimately, i was
trying to imply that I was not talking about the obvious.

adrianv,

You are willing to accept that whatever was responsible for your
creation is your god?  If so, by proving that there was a beginning to
the universe, would that also constitute proof of the existance of a
god for you?

hailstorm-ga, no not "whatever was responsible", but whatever being(s)
was/were responsible.  If no being(s) was/were responsible for my
creation, then I was not created by (a) god(s).

Generally I am open minded, scientific and religious. I guess I am
conceded enough to think most every one is wrong about most
everything. I don't think the existance of God, is dependent on
believers or beliefs. I prefer an image of God like myself, but
smarter, more ethical, and more powerful, who is replicating himself,
with humans as the raw material. So far few of us are even close, but
we have all eternity to improve if we can get our selves on an
improvement slope and stay their long term. There are religious groups
that do not consider God infinate, everywhere present nor humans to be
predestined.  This may not be biblical, nor logical nor good
philosopy, but I refuse to be a slave to a bunch of generalities, and
I will tentatively reject portions of the Bible which seem improbable
to me rather than contort my beliefs and practies in the maner that
seems common amoung philosopheres and many religous people.  Neil

No.
Here goes the theory why God does not exist.  First off, he doesn't
have to.  There is very little that science and evolution do not
explain, if you don't believe this, than you probably just do not
understand the science itself.  People of the faith (whatever faith
that might be) will frequently point to questions that science does
not have an answer to.  That simply means that we do not yet have an
answer, that does not in any way imply that the answer is that some
omnipotent being is behind it.  Second off, I will make use of
Christianity as an example, but this may be applied to any religion,
Christianity is the result of an evolution of ideas.
Look at early religions, (do some research if you are curious), they
mostly believe in the power of their gods.  Ancient city states
believed that their local god would protect them, bring rain,
children, wealth, or whatever they desired if they only appeased their
god.  Of course, their religion flurished for about as long as it took
their neighbors to conquer them.  That is why ancient peoples were
easy to convert.  If they were conquered, well then the conquering
people's god was more powerful than their own, thus conversion made
sense.
Also, if you do everything in your power to appease your god, and he /
she still does not perform as expected, you will either quickly lose
faith, or simple dislike him / her.  This is especially important in
ancient religions.  So, religions were tried and rejected, tried and
rejected.  Just look at the sheer amount of different religious
constructs.  They were rejected because they could be easily disproved
given the precepts of the religion.
So, here comes Judaism.  Now, judiasm at it's roots, is very similiar
to just about any other of it's contemporary religions.  God was their
own tribal god.  They didn't deny the existance of other gods.  All
the "You are my chosen people" "You shall have no OTHER GODS before
me" (and I hate it when people try to tell me that other gods means
money or sex or whatever.  It means what it says, go get a Torah, it
means what it says in Hebrew).  Anyhow, Jews survived for a long time,
against all odds they survived.  Most of which I believe is due to
their exclusiveness (especially during Roman times).  But their
religion was very minor until the coming of Christianity.
Anyhow, I know this is getting long winded, but I don't want to leave
holes, finally, here comes Christianity.  Here's the deal, EVERYTHING
THAT HAPPENS IS GOD'S WILL.  DON'T TRY TO UNDERSTAND GOD, FOR HE IS
INFINITE IN HIS WISDOM.  And my personal favorite, is the idea that
GOD DOESN'T MIND IF YOU SUFFER.  As a matter of fact, he rather seems
to enjoy your suffering in his name.  Given these and many writings
from the so called Apologists (Apologetics?).  You finally have a
religion that you can't simply rule out through logic.
You can't reason with people who believe that ALL THINGS THAT HAPPEN
ARE GOD'S WILL.  You can't say, see, look at that, that is stupid, why
would god will that?  They respond with a dogmatic, "The ways of God
are unknowable to man" (or some derivative).  Also, the idea that
personal salvation can be achieved through suffering, makes suffering
a noble act.  To me, that is LUNACY!
Sorry, I didn't mean to rant, I just wanted to say that various
religious views have come and gone, and we're finally stuck with one
that you can't reason with.  And, because it's evolution, it's not
even an optimal well thought out religion, it's simply (one of) the
first one that worked.

i for one think god exists, but not the god that you think he/she is!

consider the truth that in early times, when a tribe conquered another
tribe they converted the new tribe with their god(s), and by doing so
turned that tribes god(s) into evil gods (devil, deadra, evil spirits,
whatever) Continue this process for a few centuries, and everything
gets mixed up!

Just ask yourself, has any army every marched to war in the name of
Satan? I'm not a researcher but I'm pretty sure almost ever war in
history has been fought in the name of a Good And Just God! Funny eh?
Doesn't war sound more like something an evil god would create? Maybe
things got a bit too mixed up in the early days of religion! But hey,
Satan is the deceiver, and the biggest deception of all time would be
to make the world believe he was the Good and Just God! Maybe it'll be
all us atheists who will go to heaven on Judgment day.