What is God?

[Gilga-flesh]

 

No. See, for example, Buddhism.

 

Indeed! My question was hypothetical. There are many spiritual/religious believes without a god, or rather without an omnipotent creator, that include spiritual immortality of some kind.

[Sorcerer]

 

Didn't intend to suggest otherwise. But it is quite possible to prove the existence of something. Especially very big and powerful things like elephants and suns. Though not gods it seems.

In order to prove the existence of something,first you must define what that something is. Hence my question. A definition of a god which is unprovable is unsatisfactory. It makes no sense to ask the question "do you believe in god" in this case.

A manifestation of our ego. Our desires, wants. We create this God in our heads who is this perfect and powerful person, something which humans crave to some extent. We imagine a perfect paradise with no problems or flaws, which we are flawed and face troubles throughout life. Basically, a blanket for our flaws and insecurities.

 

Don't get me wrong, its possible there is a god, but if there was we obviously have had no contact as there is no proof we have. I hope there is a god, as it would suck to just stop existing. But I believe I only prove my own point in the end.

 

Honestly, I try to stay away from religion and just live life.

Why would it "suck" to stop existing. How could you have any feelings about it if you don't exist?

 

Everything you were and are remains, reordered, your actions have a remaining causal influence on a part of time and space afterwards, including your offspring and your society. You don't cease to exist just not your consciousness.

[Memammal]

In order to prove the existence of something,first you must define what that something is. Hence my question. A definition of a god which is unprovable is unsatisfactory. It makes no sense to ask the question "do you believe in god" in this case.

In what sense do you mean that any definition of a god that is unprovable is unsatisfactory? Buddhism suggests that you don't really require a god to have a rich spiritual life, while pantheism shows that you can equate god to nature (and thus belief = knowledge) which can yield a similarly rewarding spiritual experience without having to rely on the supernatural.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Memammal

[Sorcerer]

Because the question isn't answerable and therefore gibberish. cf ignostic

 

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term God is considered meaningless.

The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking What is meant by God? before proclaiming the original question Does God exist? as meaningless.

[Memammal]

OK...but hopefully you are fine with the fact that not everyone else (have to) argue from an ignostic perspective..?

[Sorcerer]

No one has to do anything. That doesn't mean there isn't a right and wrong.

[dimreepr]

Because the question isn't answerable and therefore gibberish. cf ignostic

 

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term God is considered meaningless.

The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking What is meant by God? before proclaiming the original question Does God exist? as meaningless.

 

 

Would you deny the solace that many, benignly, find in the concept of god?

[freekundli]

The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

[Memammal]

^ Your definition hints at something supernatural whereby god > nature..? Why would that be necessary? Why not: nature has been (and still is) creating (or rather revealing?) nature, it has- nor needs no ruler, and morality is a result of natural evolution?

[freekundli]

You can't prove God doesn't exist, only because that's not how evidence works.

Agree with you. If there is no convincing evidence for the existence of God, that does not mean that there is no god.

[iNow]

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Sophie Lux]

God is just..you know, an imaginary friend intended to bring humans comfort and peace of mind in times of emotional stress, or to explain scientific principles that are not understood or to disprove established scientific discoveries.

[freekundli]

What is God?

Creator of universe and he created you too.