Yes God Exists

[Unapologetics]

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.

For 1500 years the church used the word Deus and before that the Greek form is transliterated as Theos so no I will not find that the opposite is true. And while other languages and traditions call God something else, such as Elohim, Allah, Brahma, FSM, to say the word only applies to one religion is factually incorrect. Even within Christianity the word God invokes very different definitions between the denominations. I did not respond to your earlier posts because you were purposely taking my words out of context and not saying anything substantive.

[The Grand Nudger]

Valhalla seems something other than peaceful.  I think that it might be more the case that religions born of panic and disaster tend to, but do not necessarily, posit a more peaceful next life.  They act like superstitions in that way, providing us a sense of control in stressful situations beyond our ability to resolve.  Judaism was born of conquest and exile.  Christianity the antonine plagues.  Islam of byzantine and sasanian collapse.  

The pedigree is strong with abrahamism.

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. And while I agree I would not want to party in the drunken halls of Valhalla if I was looking for peace, but the point is that it is a display of what the warriors did during peace time which is to party and drink.

They farmed and did back breaking manual labor in peace time.  The partying and drinking were funded by raiding - there wouldn't be much to shindig with if they came home empty handed - which happened more often than not.  I guess we could generalize that idea of an afterlife, or hope for the future, or ideal existence - as "just the fun stuff".  Anyone who's ever had to scrape a living out of poor soils in northerly latitudes could, I think, understand the appeal of looting and drinking instead.  

This highlights the difference between two religious traditions as constructions of each cultures circumstances even more explicitly.  It's not just that they had different ideas about this other life, but that those ideas were themselves formed by wildly divergent lived experiences and value systems.

[The Grand Nudger]

Incorrect.  If every human being died five seconds from you reading this, mountains and mountains of plastic bottles would still exist, and exist for hundreds of years, too.  It is not actually the case, therefore, that if we discard with gods because they only exist in some humans minds that would mean that we have to disregard the existence of a plastic bottle..which was certainly born of human ingenuity.... but has a demonstrated and independent existence outside of a human mind.   

-this would be the whole ballgame.

You took from the portion that was arguing the existence of unicorns and the plastic unicorns will continue to exist if humans did not. The depictions of God, the writings about God, and therefore the idea of God will continue to exist if humans ceased to exist along with the plastic bottles. Even if the universe will eventually destroy the existence and evidence of that existence, the point was that it has the ability to outlast humanity due to the level of existence we have already managed to manifest.

-and yet we understand that the elephant in our mind is not an elephant.  The sculpture of an elephant is not the elephant.  I'm absolutely certain that no one here disputes that artwork exists.  That there are pictures on cave walls, even, of animals which no longer exist.

This would not be the whole ballgame since you yourself admitted that plastic bottles do exist and would continue to exist without humans.

Continuing to use the false equivalence in reverse.  Would you actually like me to simply accept it?   To settle on agreeing that gods, like plastic bottles, were created by human beings and have an existence...as art and artifact, beyond us?  Here again I'm absolutely certain that no one disputes that gods exist in -exactly- this way.

You remain incorrect, your contention remains the entire ballgame. If people made up gods..then there is no point in apologetics. Atheism would be a fact based belief.

[Astreja]

It is easy to imagine based on where technology is headed that immortality and ressurection are possible. Recent breakthroughs regarding telomeres is just one example of many. But you haven't engaged with anything I said so it is impossible to have a real discussion here. I think you are just expressing your desire for it not to ever happen.

Your thoughts about me are wrong. As I said, you bore false witness against me, specifically by attributing desires to me that I do not have. Assessing a concept and seeing it as impossible is not a desire for it to never happen; it is simply the belief that something is impossible. I do see eternal life as impossible, and believe that it is something that simply cannot (and will not) be achieved even with advanced science.

I agree that dialogue between us is impossible, as you're seeing things in others' words that aren't actually there.

[Paleophyte]

And your generalization about getting nothing done is historically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest to the point of trolling.

Neither dishonest nor inaccurate. There is 1600 years between Christ and Galileo. A millennium and a half for them to grow enough brains to not lock up the first person to tell them that the Earth goes around the sun. Saying that they got nothing done is too generous.

you cannot ignore the heap of contributions by individuals that subscribed to a worldview you say produced nothing.

Individuals. Not the church. Not the religion. And certainly not the "deity" that couldn't even be arsed to include a Commandment about basic hygiene that would have saved billions. In terms of promoting the growth of humanity, religion has proven itself worse than useless time and time again.

[Paleophyte]

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.

Wow.  Just... Wow.

There is so much wrong with that science-sounding word salad.

First, there's no such thing as "quantum particles". Perhaps you mean subatomic particles?

Second, quantum mechanics was written to explain the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles.

Third, if it can't be measured or observed, then how do you know of it?

Fourth, entanglement isn't magic.

Fifth, neither is superposition, which you clearly don't understand.

Sixth, please stop abusing these poor, poor words. What did they ever do to you? 

[Angrboda]

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.

It's nice that you believe these things.  It's also irrelevant to the question that you believe these things.  

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.

There are two theories of time, eternalism or block time, in which the past and future do exist, and presentism, the view that the present moment is the only thing that really exists.  Inasmuch as eternalism is true, you might have a point.  But the true nature of time is unknown, and so it is merely possible that you are correct.  You need it to be necessarily so.  So this in itself does not entail your conclusion.  It's speculation at this point.

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

No, a typed description, a drawing, or a plastic toy unicorn are not mind-dependent in their existence, but they are mind-dependent in their interpretation.  They require minds with the right preconditions necessary upon encountering said objects for the encounter to bring to mind the appropriate concept of a unicorn.  Failing that, the objects are no more distinguishable or particular than any other arrangement of matter.  An example is the mysterious Antikytheria, an ancient artifact composed of various gears.  When it was first discovered its purpose was unknown.  Through study and examination, we have been able to discover some of its purpose, but without an ancient Greek to confirm our musings, we may never know what its true purpose was.  However that Greek would have understood it in a way that we, at best, are trying to recreate.  And in that we may be totally off base.

The point is brought more fully home by Quine's thesis of radical translation.  In his view, we can never fully arrive at a translation of a foreign utterance.  Suppose an aboriginal points at an escaping rabbit and utters a word.  Does the man's word refer to the rabbit, to the act of fleeing, to the color of the rabbit, to the texture of the rabbits fur, to the act of pointing at a moving object, or something else entirely?  We cannot know.  With further instances, we might be able to make inferences that narrow the scope of what he does mean, but our inferences and ideas will never be equal to his, but at best a guess.  We could be totally off-base.  

But even then, to recreate the concept even in this manner requires a mind because concepts exist only as abstractions in a mind.  Absent any minds, these objects are just objects, having no meaning and corresponding to nothing, least of all a concept.

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.

Nonetheless it is not an inevitability.  Additionally, your assertion that it is inevitable because of certain preconditions is speculative, as we don't know all the preconditions nor what they entail.  So this is an interesting theory of what might be, not of what necessarily will be.

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.

A citation is needed here.  I am aware that these things are considered to exist in a sense or to a degree, but what is needed is for them to exist in the right sense and to the right degree.  The sense and degree needed are such that efficient causation necessarily applies, less than this and they fail to necessarily entail the conclusion that God exists because certain preconditions exist when we are talking about ontological existence.  As far as I'm aware, the sense and degree to which scientists posit these things to exist is either conceptual or on the order of a pregnant possibility.  Concepts entail different commitments from us than actual existents.  And pregnant possibilities may never come to fruition.  So for your argument to be accepted, you'll need to provide a relevant citation supporting that such existence is in the sense or the degree required.  Failing that, I will fall back upon Hitchen's razor that that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

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.

It is a theory that the subconscious exists independent of consciousness and a theory only.  Speculation does not entail your conclusion.  Regardless, subconscious is still an aspect of mind, and if all minds of a type likely to bring forh these possibilities should effectively become extinct, then these possibilities would die with 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.

Yes, ideas of God can and do vary.  What matters, however, is what ideas of God create the preconditions under which specific, meaningful, and significant commitments are probable.  I may take up the cross if I believe in the biblical Jesus.  I would not do likewise if Jesus is just a fiction and exists as nothing more than just a fanciful idea.  Thus certain minimums are required in order for the idea of God to make it probable that important decisions and commitments will follow.  One of these minimums is that God have a necessary existence.  If God is merely contingent, then any moral or behavioral imperatives are no longer transcendant and thereby enjoy some measure of objectivity, but simply become matters of subjective preference, that one may abide or ignore without necessary consequence.  A God we create is no god at all, but merely another part of the world, which we are not obligated towards in any real fashion.

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.

The effect of belief is real.  Beliefs in and of themselves do not necessarily entail specific outcomes.  So this is more theory and speculation.

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.

This is speculation and theory at best.

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.

These are interesting theories, but they are unproven and so are nothing more than mere possibility.  You need more than mere possibility, or even probability.

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.

Physical atoms according to classical physics do not operate as quantum physics predicts and describes.  This is because classical physics is wrong in important ways and so the so-called "physical atoms" of classical physics do not correspond with reality and therefore effectively do not exist.  This is because quantum physics is a more complete and accurate description of reality than classical physics, not because they are ontologically distinct.  They both describe the same physical world, not one that possesses one set of behaviors and another, separate realm of things that possess a different set of behaviors.

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.

More speculation and theory.  Speculation and theory cut no ice with respect to the question.

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.

Actually, you have done precisely that, describe their methods and traditions.  A Buddhist is confronted by the four noble truths, his response might be to follow the twelvefold path in order to realize a beneficial outcome in the face of the reality described by the four noble truths.  So the methods and traditions are a reaction to and an artifact of the metaphysics of each religion.  As they differ, so they point to meaningful differences in the metaphysics of the religion.  It is these metaphysics that are the heart of the matter, not simply behaviors or subgoals.  And yes you are behaving according to the classic lumper and splittter paradigm in that you weight certain things more heavily in terms of taxonomic differences (goals) rather than other things (such as rituals or legends).  Inasmuch as your weighting is not dictated by anything objective, it is purely based upon a subjective preference and I am free to agree or disagree at my druthers.

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.

That's nice.  That and six bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

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.

Yes, this was discussed above in that you need the pregnancy of the present to entail the future in a specific sense and to a certain strength of degree.  You have not done so.

[Unapologetics]

You took from the portion that was arguing the existence of unicorns and the plastic unicorns will continue to exist if humans did not. The depictions of God, the writings about God, and therefore the idea of God will continue to exist if humans ceased to exist along with the plastic bottles. Even if the universe will eventually destroy the existence and evidence of that existence, the point was that it has the ability to outlast humanity due to the level of existence we have already managed to manifest.

-and yet we understand that the elephant in our mind is not an elephant.  The sculpture of an elephant is not the elephant.  I'm absolutely certain that no one here disputes that artwork exists.  That there are pictures on cave walls, even, of animals which no longer exist.

This would not be the whole ballgame since you yourself admitted that plastic bottles do exist and would continue to exist without humans.

Continuing to use the false equivalence in reverse.  Would you actually like me to simply accept it?   To settle on agreeing that gods, like plastic bottles, were created by human beings and have an existence...as art and artifact, beyond us?  Here again I'm absolutely certain that no one disputes that gods exist in -exactly- this way.

You remain incorrect, your contention remains the entire ballgame.  If people made up gods..then there is no point in apologetics.  Atheism would be a fact based belief.

I understand what you mean that the elephant in your mind exists as something different than a physical elephant, but assuming your conceptualization is not inaccurate, the two have an important relationship. You mentioned an elephant, but the text on the screen is not an elephant either, yet your invocation of it brings to mind the idea of a figurative elephant in my head which is associated to the objective reality of a physical elephant which is called something different in the counties where elephants come from. But this is all philosophical gymnastics and not dialogue. Speaking a sentence does not need to be a recitation of a dictionary to validate each words purpose. 

The only point was that if there is physical evidence in the world of such a thing, then I does exist on some level. Existence is not a simple yes or not for example do our ancestors and dinosaurs exist? Someone with a "right now" perspective would say no and someone with a more encompassing view of existence to include the past would say yes.

What you said earlier about back breaking labor during peace time. This would be addressed by the prosperity pursued by all, or utopia, so that the back breaking labor is done by tractors instead. So the peace envisioned in paradise or heaven is having the time and freedom to do the things that bring you joy or fulfillment.

[Nay_Sayer]

Are you sure you're not quoting a bot Unpo?

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet we understand that the elephant in our mind is not an elephant.  The sculpture of an elephant is not the elephant.  I'm absolutely certain that no one here disputes that artwork exists.  That there are pictures on cave walls, even, of animals which no longer exist.
Continuing to use the false equivalence in reverse.  Would you actually like me to simply accept it?   To settle on agreeing that gods, like plastic bottles, were created by human beings and have an existence...as art and artifact, beyond us?  Here again I'm absolutely certain that no one disputes that gods exist in -exactly- this way.

You remain incorrect, your contention remains the entire ballgame.  If people made up gods..then there is no point in apologetics.  Atheism would be a fact based belief.

I understand what you mean that the elephant in your mind exists as something different than a physical elephant, but assuming your conceptualization is not inaccurate, the two have an important relationship. You mentioned an elephant, but the text on the screen is not an elephant either, yet your invocation of it brings to mind the idea of a figurative elephant in my head which is associated to the objective reality of a physical elephant which is called something different in the counties where elephants come from. But this is all philosophical gymnastics and not dialogue. Speaking a sentence does not need to be a recitation of a dictionary to validate each words purpose. 

The only point was that if there is physical evidence in the world of such a thing, then I does exist on some level. Existence is not a simple yes or not for example do our ancestors and dinosaurs exist? Someone with a "right now" perspective would say no and someone with a more encompassing view of existence to include the past would say yes.

What you said earlier about back breaking labor during peace time. This would be addressed by the prosperity pursued by all, or utopia, so that the back breaking labor is done by tractors instead. So the peace envisioned in paradise or heaven is having the time and freedom to do the things that bring you joy or fulfillment.

The point, you said, was that if we dismissed unicorns for existing only in minds we would have to discard everything else that minds have created.  This remains as incorrect as ever.  As a defense of a god idea it is facile and, frankly, deleterious to that very end.

If gods are, as you invite us to consider...like unicorns...made up.....that is the entire ballgame.  You and I agree that gods do not exist in the only manner of existence relevant to atheism.