Yes God Exists

[Paleophyte]

But I am not talking about "the next life" I am talking about the future. The idea of waiting until "the next life" is religion's way of getting people to not expect the power structure of today to go along with the stated goals.

You're half way there. So close. Figure it out.

If humans don't need god to make their afterlife (Won't organised religion piss themselves if we ever achieve that?) then what use is the silly superstition? Religion claims that we just want to become gods. What they fear is that we just want to ignore them and get to work.

[Paleophyte]

Your choice to identify with the fools I was referring to is not my doing.

I'll take one of them over a dozen of you any day.

The word God is an English word with a recent origin, not a word that goes back thousands of years.

I think you'll find that's the opposite of true.

And this Egnlish word is used to describe dieties of every religions. While modern day English translation of the Bible swap out Elohim for God and Yahweh for Lord, it does not change that God is a word with a conceptual meaning far beyond what Christians think or use it for. And if you take the capital away from god it completely changes the context and meaning which is why I am using the capital version.

I think that you'll find that "God", with the capital "G", is a proper name. Exactly one religion uses it to identify their deity. Words have meaning.

[Angrboda]

Oh my god, what a pile of .....woo. quantum woo to be precise, to nobody's surprise.

No, the "quantum realm" does NOT exist outside space and time, you know nothing about other universes, particularly not if consciousness is part of them, and all the other garbage you spewed is just that: garbage

Quantum exists outside the natural world and is not restricted by the laws of phsyics. Quantum particles interact with the physcial world, but exist outside of it. So if you want to say all the scientists are wrong, so be it but it is not an argument that has much to stand on.

Citation needed.

[Unapologetics]

Now, the christian god loves to punish people for crimes that others have committed and thus is unjust as we just agreed on. With that in mind, do you still stick to your claims below?

Most Christians don't read the bible and the few that do don't follow it. So when you say "Christian God" that can mean a lot of different things depending on which version of Christianity you are referring to and which Christian we are talking about. And my claims had nothing to do with Christianity other than Christianity like all of faiths have the same stated goals which play out in our society all over the world. If you read the Bible, it gives very little information about this Kingdom of Heaven it promises or how it will be established. So it does not offer much as far as a roadmap on how to get there. So yes I still stick to my claims because how people pervert religion has nothing to do with what I am saying.

[awty]

Oh Una....you have posts being caught in our spam catcher. Not a good sign.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Now, the christian god loves to punish people for crimes that others have committed and thus is unjust as we just agreed on. With that in mind, do you still stick to your claims below?

Most Christians don't read the bible and the few that do don't follow it. So when you say "Christian God" that can mean a lot of different things depending on which version of Christianity you are referring to and which Christian we are talking about. And my claims had nothing to do with Christianity other than Christianity like all of faiths have the same stated goals which play out in our society all over the world. If you read the Bible, it gives very little information about this Kingdom of Heaven it promises or how it will be established. So it does not offer much as far as a roadmap on how to get there. So yes I still stick to my claims because how people pervert religion has nothing to do with what I am saying.

 
(Bold mine)

It would be absolutely horrific if Christians (or any franchise thereof) DID follow the Bible. *shudder*

As an atheist who has given the Bible - and various other magic books - more than a cursory read, I think people following the Bible would collapse Western civilization. Non-Western civilizations might survive, but they’d have a rough go of it.

Boru

[Deesse23]

Now, the christian god loves to punish people for crimes that others have committed and thus is unjust as we just agreed on. With that in mind, do you still stick to your claims below?

Most Christians don't read the bible and the few that do don't follow it. So when you say "Christian God" that can mean a lot of different things depending on which version of Christianity you are referring to and which Christian we are talking about. And my claims had nothing to do with Christianity other than Christianity like all of faiths have the same stated goals which play out in our society all over the world. If you read the Bible, it gives very little information about this Kingdom of Heaven it promises or how it will be established. So it does not offer much as far as a roadmap on how to get there. So yes I still stick to my claims because how people pervert religion has nothing to do with what I am saying.

That was a complete evasion on your side. Nobody (but you) was talking about what version of christians particularly believe in. What you claimed was some attributes across serval religions, including christianity (in fucking.general). Ill have to remind you of your own words, which had zero to do with details written in the bible, but with things attributed to the christian god.

So, after having agreed with me that the christian god is unjust, do you still stick to your assessments below, which do contradict to what you agreed with me by the way (spoiler)? do you still claim the christian god to be unjust while, at the same time claiming the things below?

To use Christianity as an easy example we can see a set of promises that seem on the face to be outlandish, but I will argue that it does not take faith at all to believe in them. Those promises are eternal life, God's kingdom, God on the throne, heaven,  resurrection, and perfect justice. When you look at every tradition, every empire, every religion, and every worldview they are all attempting to accomplish the same goals. To create healthcare that will keep you alive indefinitely (eternal life), create a one world authority (God's kingdom), to place a good person in the seat of power over that authority (God), to make society a utopia for all (heaven), to bring back our loved ones (resurrection), and to establish fair laws (perfect justice).

Quantum woo: Do you still hold to your claim that "quantum" (this thing does actually not exist, there is no "quantum") is "outside of space and time". If so: please demonstrate.

[Unapologetics]

The unicorn in a drawing or picture exists as a concept.  That is to exist in a different sense than is typically associated with claims that God exists in which He is posited as an ontic entity, not merely as a concept.  If you are only arguing that God exists as a concept then I have no issue with that.  At the same time, the ramifications and consequences for anyone's decision-making in that instance are grossly limited compared to Him existing ontologically.

I believe that religious people describe God in a way that is purposefully cryptic, unscientific, and confusing because religious leaders command them to do so. This is to keep God in the realm of unmanifested potential, to keep the people in power that have no desire for humanity to achieve peace or justice. Rather I believe God can be perfectly understood psychologically, scientifically, socially, and politically and a version of reality will eventually manifest that checks all the boxes of what God and heaven are described as. But most likely by a people that have shed the delusional vocabulary that makes God an inconceivable ball of madness.

Even if this is a possibility, the mere possibility of a thing, whether unicorn or god, does not argue for its actual existence.

This applies a "right now" aspect to existing that is common, but not practical. This would imply that my ancestors don't exist because they are not here with me now. That historical figures or ancient empires don't exist because they don't exist now. Our inability to see the future does not negate its existence. We are discovering through breakthroughs in quantum physics that these futures not only exist but we have the ability to interact with them now. I am arguing the theory that humans were always interacting with these quantum potentials and calling them God, Satan, angels, demons, ghosts, aliens, fairies, etc.

Concepts such as that of a unicorn are mind-dependent in a way that man-made objects are not.  Thus the existence of these non-mind-dependent objects is not invalidated by the absence of minds as a concept would be.

A typed description, a drawing, or a plastic toy unicorn are not mind-dependent. If every human vanished and an alien race came to earth to study our ruins, the idea of God will outlast our minds and therefore has an existe

The positing of a position or a role does not entail the filling of that role.  Thus while many conceive of a role or title played by God, their doing so does not entail that the role or title is filled and therefore that God exists as an ontological entity.

When you realize that the position exists in the minds of religious people, you will understand why it is that political leaders or revolutionaries will fill that role by applying divinity to themselves. Their conceptualization of God subconsciously manifests into the world so that we constantly elect to positions of power messiah figures and foolishly give God-like authority to them. This experiment of "establishing God" over us will continue until we get it right. But that requires us to wake up to the reality of what we are doing in the first place. You are not going to convince people to abandon their beliefs because it is literally in their DNA, but you can understand where they are going and influence the process to ensure your envisioned Christian dystopia doesn't become a lived reality.

Nothing you have said here leads to the conclusion that God exists.  This is a non sequitur, specifically a red herring.

If you do not believe in quantum potentials or multiverse theory and do not believe that what exists in your imagination exists on any level then you are right. However, the information I am seeing out of the scientific community is that these things do have a degree of existence and the idea of God can and arguably does occupy these realms.

In addition to being another red herring, this is speculation.  If your speculation here turns out to be wrong, then so are your conclusions which follow from them.

The realities governing the manifestations of the subconscious mind are observable, measurable, and are becoming more predictable the more we know. There is no red herring about the fact that patterns being revealed by our subconscious exist independently of our consciousness or imagination. If it turns out to be simple math, 1's and 0's computing and mental illness being a simple glitch, this doesn't negate the fact that the mathematical formulas governing the system still existed before we discovered them and gave vocabulary to it. The Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio guiding our subconscious to rate beauty both existed before we gave a name to them.

Biological, no.  Ontological, yes.  One of God's main attributes is that he is a necessary being, necessary in the ontological sense.  If he doesn't exist ontologically, then he is not a necessary being in that sense and the entity described is thus not God.  This is an example of the fallacy of definition wherein the relevant definition which frames the argument is overly narrow or overly broad for the relevant question.  Specifying a biological existence for God is too narrow.

Part of the problem is defining God in undefinable terms like infinity, unlimited, unfathomable, etc. The Ontological argument fails to apply God in any way that matters to us mere mortals. We can do with math, logic, and language whatever we please and the same can be said about ideas. God as an idea can change and morph and does so across religions. I contest that as long as we allow definitions to be what they are, we are controlled by the language rather than controlling the language. To truly be masters of our own destiny we must become masters of definition as well. And if you study the origins of words you'll see the perversion of definitions from generation to generation. I believe these perversions are intentional as a tool of manipulation and control by the power structures. Much how corporations use marketing to associate common words with their products and services that are not at all healthy, natural, or organic.

It does not follow from this that God exists.  This is a non sequitur.

The measurability of God's affect is an argument that God exists. While this would not achieve the highest degree of existence, it is still a greater degree than most nonbelievers are willing to admit out of fear that it may open the door to accepting certain realities regarding the characteristics of God.

Aside from my earlier remarks that a role can go unfulfilled, it is not inevitable that an ultimate ruler will one day occur; we could evolve toward some form of universal democracy, never ever positing a supreme ruler.  Thus your argument here fails because it is dependent upon a potentially false statement being necessarily true.  Thus it only posits the possibility of a god, not its actuality.  Additionally, since this has yet to come to pass, it fails in two other ways.  First, since it hasn't happened, God doesn't currently exist.  Which leads to the second failure.  Given that He doesn't currently exist, His non-existence is in conflict with His primary attribute as a necessary being and thus any such supreme ruler would not in fact be God.

When you apply the historical fact that every experiment with democracy has failed in very predictable ways. The parts of the United States that implemented Democratic parts have also suffered from these same problems. The majority raid the coffers for their own benefit which bankrupts the system and marginalize minority groups to the point of unrest. You can argue that "We might one day get it right" which is what the Communists keep insisting, but the math simply doesn't work for Democracy to ever be successful, but I would agree that the US has shown that it is possible to sustain stability with Democratic elements, and the Democratic elements may even be the secret to the longevity of the country since the US is the longest standing form of government in the world today. But our human nature to disagree needs an authority that can settle disputes, disagreements, and deadlocks.

There are stories about how the future is coming to the past and interacting with the present to either preserve the timeline or change the past to prevent a cataclysm. This is how future potentials (which exists quantumly) interact with and effect us today. Good intuition is the ability to tap into these quantum realities and rightly deduce which future will manifest based on your present actions. So when you have a "bad feeling" about something, you are sensing the pain or disapproval of a potential future self if you don't act and are moved to change the course of your future to avoid that pain. I am not saying you have to believe all this, just that in this scenario, these potential exists in a manner that you can interact with them and your decisions can be altered by them. People's desire to manifest a good God or an evil God will manifest as quantum influence leading them to actions that help bring about and manifest the reality they are desiring. The inevitability is that humanity is manifesting it whether you like it or not. But the so-called "Anti-chirst" will basically a failed attempt at creating the peaceful and just society we want. But it will be the church that creates the Anti-christ and they will call him God.

Again, the quantum realm does not exist outside time and space; it is time and space.  Thus the alleged correlation with religious ideas of a reality outside time and space does not hold.  Additionally, you are engaged in speculation, as well as confusing an interpretation of quantum physics as entailing specific ontological properties of that quantum realm.  If your speculations or the interpretation are incorrect, so are your conclusions.  So this is another case where you have demonstrated that something is in the realm of possibility, but not the realm of actuality.  Thus this line of argument is ultimately a non sequitur with regard to the question of whether God exists.

Physical atoms work by a completely different set or rules than quantum particles. Quantum particles are not restricted by space and time such as quantum entanglement. The mechanism connecting these particles is not something that can be observed or measured except by how the particles on either end of the entanglement interact with one another. And matter is restricted to being in one position, but quantum particles can exist in super position, something impossible in the physical world. If you don't believe me or think I'm too stupid to understand concepts of quantum theory then I guess we have nothing to discuss on this.

As the Spartans replied to King Phillip II, "If...."  Again, speculation doesn't lead to a definitive conclusion.  And again, if God is contingent, then his existence as a necessary being is contradicted and he is not God.  While any such being that may resemble God but who is not God may pose some interesting questions, what we can conclude about the ontology of such a being, as well as its consequences for the decisions we make in life will be different.  Thus arguing for beings that are not strictly speaking the classical God is a form of equivocation in which you refer to God using two different senses, that of a classical God, and that of a non-classical God-like being, both within the same argument.  This renders your argument invalid.

The argument you referred to was not an argument on how we should define God, but rather "If..." God really is a product of our subconscious mind, which many physcologists are suggesting, then this argument suggests that God is not something we manufactured or imagined but something built into our DNA for whatever reason and therefore exists whether we believe or not. This does not automatically validate everyone misconceived notions about who or what God is and does not give us any directive on how to approach the subject. It is just an argument specifically about God's existence.

As Bel has already noted, while you can find points of similarity among the world's religions, you can also find important points of difference.  As a Hindu, I would disagree with the idea that what you have outlined is true of my beliefs.  I would say that the same holds true of the vast majority of Buddhists, as well.  The two combined comprise 20% of the world population.  In biology there is a common trope that there are those who are lumpers and those who are splitters; lumpers tend to downplay differences while splitters tend to emphasize them, arguing for splits in group taxonomies rather than combination of them.  Whether in any specific question of taxonomy one chooses the position of lumper or splitter is mostly related to facts which are subjective and cannot be objectively resolved.  In your quest to lump all religions under the banner of a universalism you have staked out a position which, while it can be argued, is not an objective fact, but rather a subjective one.  As a subjective fact, essentially opinion, it does not entail any necessary conclusions and thus leads to a situation similar to before where you have established the possibility, but not the actuality.

I am not at all lumping them together. I am simply talking about their stated goals, not the methods or traditions that have manifested out of those religions. I am also observing how they manifest societal norms, not about their personal views on things irrelevant to the conversation like what is a soul what is good to eat. Keeping the past alive through storytelling, statue carving, and holy scriptures is most definitely what Hindu's and Buddhists do. They also believe in the carrying on of a person, whether you call it soul, spirit, essence, consciousness, after life, or whatever. Their government systems and even their temples establish hierarchies that eventually have an individual at the top. This is not a lumping of anything, but fact about how humans organize across the globe. Even aborigine peoples have chieftains. These are objective facts that I am arguing can be used to deduce the most likely, and in my opinion the inevitable outcome. Generally speaking of course, I think all religions get it wrong because they are too rigid in their thinking, but they have the basic elements of what will eventually happen.

These are not inevitable outcomes.  I'll stipulate for the sake of argument that they are probable outcomes.  However, if they are only probably, they don't necessarily entail a conclusion.  Might implies might not.  And so this is another non sequitur.

In the absence of any other model making headway in the world, I would say the solutions being pushed and manufactured are the foreshadow of the inevitable outcome even it takes humanity another million years to do so.

One can readily conceive of an egg and the chicken not existing simultaneously.  There will always be a point at which what once was an egg ceases to be an egg and is then clearly a chicken and vice versa.  That this boundary is fuzzy and not clearly defined does not imply it does not exist, as that would be an argument rooted in the fallacy of the beard.  Thus one can readily conceive of the egg existing without the chicken ever coming to be (and also vice versa, as a chicken may be created through other means than the natural development of eggs).  So I can conceive of humanity without necessarily concluding that a god is either inevitable, nor that it in some sense necessarily exists because humanity exists.  I think you have let sloppy thinking and lack of rigor lead you down the primrose path.

One can readily conceive of up being down and down being up, it is called inverted controls. But that is not an answer to the philosophical question regarding the exclusivity of up versus down. While your argument is not as sloppy as the biological one that eggs evolved first, you are clearly dismissing fundamental aspects of the question. We are not talking about any egg, the philosophical question is talking about a chicken egg. While a rabbit laying chicken eggs is conceivable, this doesn't mean I can manufacture chicken eggs from the Easter bunny. I am simply applying Occam's razor to the equation and looking at it from a perspective that applies newly discovered evidence of quantum realities transcending time.

[Unapologetics]

The main point is that what Christianity and all other religions promise is what all of humanity is already working toward and are just inevitable outcomes.

Christianity and the other religions were never working toward any of these lofty goals. They failed to get anything done for thousands of years, which was unsurprising given that they never pretended to try in most cases. We started doing that after we abandoned religion as a bad job, got off our knees, unclasped our hands, and rolled up our sleeves to do some honest work. Your god is nothing more than imagination superstition propped up by flowery phrases.

I have already addressed the difference between stated goals, actions taken, and the results. And your generalization about getting nothing done is historically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest to the point of trolling. I don't care about the past beyond what patterns can predict our future. I'm not going to justify anyone's behavior or try to make a poor argument that if some evil person in the past believed something you do then it says something about your character. Even if you buy into the highly romanticized idea of the age of enlightenment, you cannot ignore the heap of contributions by individuals that subscribed to a worldview you say produced nothing.

[Nay_Sayer]

Bold mine; This is really funny when you consider that from the jump, you have been crying about the responses you have been getting.

You have needled everyone in the initial reply because it's not fitting a narrative you want. You then find Bels, who pretty much just parrots your stuff, and you all but fall in love.

You are more transparent than cellophane, and I again implore you to try the Discord idea.

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

(Spoiler for brevity)

I merely engaged the bots so the bots could do what bots to best, to engage the algorithms. You have been posting so much you clearly want some attention so I am throwing you a bone here. Usually people in forums like these are well aware of things like projection and confirmation bias, but it is often the case that the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents those same people from noticing their own susceptibility. So if you want to talk about transparency you just have to read everyone's post and you can learn a lot about them.

0/10

We have entered the quantum portion of the scheduled flailing about.