From existence to the existence of God

Mariue wrote:Suppose you all guys here propose also your definition of what is existence in not more than 10 words?

That should be a most honest intelligent and productive contribution from your part to the present thread.

No, it wouldn't. As cthia's and Donna's responses prove, there is a vast gulf in what we believe certain words to mean.
We gain nothing by trying to reduce the definition of quite complex things into very short sentences; If the goal is to have a comprehensive statement that everyone can agree on, then by necessity that statement will hinge on supplementary definitions and clarifications, thus exceeding your arbitrary 10-word limit quite easily.

And yeah, there's definitely an unbridgeable gap between my materialist definition of the word "existence" and cthia's ... strange little formula.

Then we can work out together to arrive at a concurred on definition of what is existence, from the accumulated definitions from you all in not more than 10 words.

No, we can't. What you are proposing to do amounts to a unified theory of philosophy; we, as in the 5 or so people commenting in this thread, won't be able to get to that, let alone arrive at something that is a useful starting point for further discussion.

Recall that the OP has to do with the proposition of "From existence to the existence of God."

Once we have concurred on the definition of existence, then we can further work as to concur on what it is to prove something to exist, and finally concur on what is God.

The only way to do that is by ignoring people who disagree with you. I am quite certain that, for instance, you and cthia could quickly come to an agreement, but you and me? Not likely. My definition what God is (A personification of the randomness and vastness of the world that is an artifact of the way human cognition has been shaped by its evolutionary environment) is quite incompatible with yours, and no amount of mutually agreed upon word definition games will change that.

One person's point of view:

It is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of any god or gods, if you adhere to the scientific definition of "proof". That definition requires repeatable observations of phenomena that always lead to the same results and conclusions.

Such observations are how we have established "natural laws", consistent principles of the way the world works. A god, on the other hand, is by definition a supernatural thing -- "above nature". If something is not subject to the natural laws we have observed, we cannot derive proof of its existence or non-existence.

We can, however, apply standards of proof to claims of a god's existence. To take a classic example, consider the tale of Noah's Ark. If one contends that it actually happened, how can they explain that:

1. There is no archaeological evidence of a worldwide flood.

2. The only people who supposedly survived were the Semitic family on the Ark. So where did all of the other DNA variations come from? With such a small, mostly related starting population, why didn't inbreeding produce the genetic defects that normally result?

3. How did animals such as the kangaroo or bison, not native to the Middle East, get all the way to the Ark and back without leaving any trace?

4. Bible historians have calculated the date of the flood as 2304 BC, but there are archaeological records of civilizations in Asia and the Americas that show continuity from long before the supposed flood to well after.

The two most common responses I've heard to such questioning are:

1. "It's an allegory." Well, so is the Harry Potter saga.

2. "God changed and/or erased the evidence to test our faith." That's a circular argument, and you can prove nothing if you assume that evidence was altered or faked.

If you cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of a god, it comes down to personal faith. This is the illogical realm of the human mind, and believing in a god is not a conscious, considered choice. A lot of it is based on childhood indoctrination, reinforced by peer group pressure and the need for social affiliation. If you're born and raised in India, you most likely grow up to follow Hinduism. If in Thailand, you're probably Theravada Buddhist. And so on.

To me, the question is not the existence of a god, because it can't be settled one way or the other. I'm more concerned with what humans do in the name of their god.

dscott8 wrote:..snip..
To me, the question is not the existence of a god, because it can't be settled one way or the other. I'm more concerned with what humans do in the name of their god.

As the saying goes: The difference between a believer and a fanatic is that the former is willing to die for his/her belief and the latter is willing to let you die.

Whatever makes you happy. I'd love to believe that after I go I'll be reunited with my parents, then settle in for eternity. However an excessively logical mind precludes this for me.