Why the existence of God cannot be determined

It’s a matter of semantics. If someone asks you, “Do you believe in God?”, you must have a conception of what “God” is, in order to answer in either the negative or the positive. Replace “God” with any other concept and it becomes clear that my argument stands. As an example: “Do you believe in bears?” Most people would say yes, and most people would agree with that statement. And again: “Do you believe in unicorns?” Most people would say no, and most people would agree with that. But that agreement on whether bears or unicorns exist requires a basic understanding (at least between the two people having the conversation) of what the term “bear” or “unicorn” signifies. Same goes with “God”. But “God” can mean many different things to many different people.

Which God are we talking about here?–teleological explanation of the evolving universe?–consensus of agreement on certain experiences?–skydaddy for the sheeple?
I believe in a God who may be manifested as all three options mentioned above. In the first case belief in God is an explanatory model for the way things came to be as they are. It is a viable model for many scientists who believe in the existence of a God. In the second case, billions of people have claimed to have had direct experience with a God. This provides a consensus of agreement, which is as close to objectivity as we can get. In the third case, the skydaddy can show compassion for people trapped in time and dimensions, can comfort the afflicted and can be ultimately personal.

You can describe everything about our physics without describing what we are, what that existence means. Can we then say that we can describe the entire universe physically, but there is nothing else about it? That seems like a contradiction, if our foremost reality is of ourselves & that’s our main or only true reality [not purely physical], then there is at least ‘something else’ about reality itself.

Hence our inability to describe God, no more denies his existence than that of our own - which we can also not describe!

My topic title was inadvertently misleading, and for that I apologize. Poor choice of words on my part (inebriation may have played a role in that). And I didn’t flesh out my argument. What I was trying to say was that the argument over whether God exists (in the abstract sense) cannot be resolved because the term “God” is a very amorphous concept, capable of many different definitions, including those which Ierrellus so kindly provided. If we can agree on what the term “God” signifies, then certainly we can have a rational argument over whether that “God” exists, but it will not shed any light on the larger question of whether “God” exists. So I suppose what I’m saying is that the very common question, “Does God exist?” is inapposite.

well there is only one [infinite] reality, so my basis would be that there can only be one [ultimately] thing which manifests existence. then doing that is creation.

that something may not be a god, but some matrix-like sorting program [or some such thing], or otherwise a mechanistic thing. but my argument is that in our experience, the physics don’t tell us what we are, but we know we exist as what we are, a living being. then the argument is that it is perhaps the same for reality itself.

bit like my sig…
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.

watches

Do you believe in numbers?
Do you belive in theories?
Do you believe in words?
Do you believe in money?

For those who have had a God experience, descriptions Of God are unnecessary. The experience is a real feel–a cyclone in the weather of mind, body and spirit. It is an event, not a belief.

i’ve seen more than one god though.

Can any of you debate his points? Talk about going off tangent of conversation.

Exactly correct. =D>

And then add to it that Man has a passion to try to BE God (aka “the all powerful”) thus quite intentionally obscures and obfuscates any reasoning involved in resolving the issue. In short, “It ain’t by accident”. :evilfun:

What you have seen may amount to different names/descriptions of the one God.
As for the inability to prove I exist (Descartes), somebody here is typing this post. Descartes got it backward. It’s “I am, therefore I think.”