Well does God exist then or what?

Well, as a new RE teacher (started this Monday) what can I say? My personal feeling is that we are pretty insignificant in the whole scheme of things and that's where we go wrong when we talk about this stuff... We think of God as in a human centric God, and that's where it fall down. I am quite happy to belive in God if I think that God is something so big, the Universe in its entirity perhaps, and that really, despite all our big brains, we haven't got the foggiest. That's why I'm not a big fan of people who say God definitely does not exist. How can we know? I wouldn't necessarily usually answer on this thread, but as my new job requires me to discuss these things at length, I felt it was only right..

As far as I can see, it all depends on your disposition. Some people have an innate sense of something beyond themselves, a capacity for religious experience. Others don't. Religious experience is an experience of transcendence, of becoming more than yourself, or experiencing things that are beyond the mundane. We all have a capacity for this, and will all, at some point in our life feel things that are extraordinary. We all have the capacity for epiphanies. Most of us will pursue these feelings, trying to integrate them into our experience of the normal world. Religion will provide us a way of doing this without upsetting the applecart of our view of the world. A belief in a God lets you integrate the extraordinary into the normal without changing any of our suppositions about the nature of reality. Others of us will not have this innate need to for a conclusive answer, and will find other ways of integrating, or rejecting, these extraordinary experiences into our view of reality. Some of us will use religion as a way of experiencing the transcendent, becoming more deeply involved with religion as a way of gaining further access to these extraordinary sensations. Others will reject them as quirks of existence. Yet more of us will find ways to understand these experiences that change us in the process, but do not lead us to the conclusion that such experiences are de facto proof of a divine being or beings. It seems that there is a huge difference between people regarding their degree of ontological security. Those of us who are more ontologically secure experience the world as a rational, well meaning place and do not doubt our right to have a place in it. Those of us who are more ontologically insecure are worried that the world seems to be without meaning, with no great dispensation towards being good to us. Neither side is more disposed to a belief in a divine being, as that belief proves useful in both conditions. It comes down to, I suppose, which side you instinctively feel needs to make the argument. Some tend toward proof first, some to belief first. Either way it's difficult to make a convincing argument that doesn't include your gut reaction, the thought that is inside of you that isn't necessarily expressed in words but definitely exists as a feeling. Cheers, Mark

I don’t believe in God. Which doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. For me, it’s not reasonable to deny the existence of something because I can’t prove its existence. I can’t prove the existence of life somewhere else in the universe, but I accept the possibility of it. What I don’t believe is that there’s a divine Being that created the universe, and the earth, and all life on the earth, and that everything we do is done in accordance with an Immanent will. On Mark’s point about disposition: Pascal Boyer, the anthropologist, advocates the idea “that human instincts provide us with the basis for an intuitive theory of mind that guides our social relations, morality, and predilections toward religious beliefs.” Boyer and others propose that these innate mental systems make human beings predisposed to certain cultural elements such as belief in supernatural beings. I’m not sure whether I agree with that. It’s one theory among many. A fascinating topic for discussion if nothing else.

It seems to me that Mark has fallen at the first fence. Either 'god' exists or he/she/it doesn't, it has nothing to do with either disposition or personal beliefs.

There he goes again..fighting the impossible fight There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Missi, if you look carefully, I was looking at why people would feel one way or the other. Again, your reductive position prevents you from looking at the really interesting meat of the matter. For me, it's not that interesting to ask whether a god or gods exist or not. It's far more interesting to understand why someone would feel that they did or didn't. Any answer to the is there/isn't there question is far less interesting than the reasoning employed to reach it. As I've said on another thread, people choose the religion or religious expression that has the most relevence to them. 'Cutting to the chase' in this instance reveals very little of any interest. Cheers, Mark

Mark, what a gorgeous answer! I must start a 'Fans of markbrown Club'! *swoons*

It's ok for Missi to hold a personal opinion about his belief in God but it's not permitted for anyone else to because their wrong and he's right. It's like the absolute truth argument. Someone who says there is no absolute truth is stating their belief in an abolsute truth, namely: if there is no absolute truth then there is absolutely no absolutes therefore it's an absolute truth in itself. Wasting time over the existence of god is pointless - think about the idea!! There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

'It's ok for Missi to hold a personal opinion about his belief in God but it's not permitted for anyone else to because their wrong and he's right.' You mean, you didn't know this already, yan? I thought it was fairly obvious that we're gum on the sole of his boot... I hope I'm minty fresh flavour... *snort*

Or should I say: 'SOUL' of his boot... *guffaws*

I think this is what the philosophers refer to as 'reductio ad absurdum', Yan. How about 'all truths are relative'. All religions are based on absolutes. So... which one is right? Or are they all wrong? *all truths are relative, but some are more relative than others*

"You mean, you didn't know this already, yan? I thought it was fairly obvious that we're gum on the sole of his boot... I hope I'm minty fresh flavour." slipper. What are you talking about alan? You've completely lost me now with all that philosophcical stuff. I'm with peps then...He is a thought form or some tulpa or something. I believe that when you die the last thing you see before lights out is the one thing you loved the most. So, in Missi's case he's gonna come face to face with himself...peps a virual reality games console presented to him by Larry and Mick and me...probably my stiff cock. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I think 'lost' is the best place to be. Been there for years!

Defining the undefinable is a slight problem here. Believing THAT god exists is entirely different to believing IN god. What's the golden rule of science? Nothing can ever be proven, only reinforced. Personally, I believe that the universe is made up a number of atoms. Upon death our atoms become disentangled and continue their jobs as atoms by sucking-up with some other atom groups somewhere. Maybe as piece of furniture, maybe a bit of dirt...whatever. So, in essence, we are eternal, infinite...just not in the way we first dreamt. We are the universe. Atoms are vert clever. They are the true, absolute survivors and creators of the universe. What we are are mere vechicles for atoms to feed off. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Thread title and first question; ' Well does God exist then or what?' Mark's opening comment; 'As far as I can see, it all depends on your disposition.' I was commenting on the question and immediate answer which indicates that Mark believes in certain circumstances god does indeed or can exist, but in other circumstances does not. When those circumstances are measured in terms of an individuals 'disposition' they preclude finite existence or otherwise. I understand Mark finding individual's thoughts being of more interest but that was not the question posed by haemorrhoid.

which god are we talking about, exactly?

The only one. Whichever one that is.

Well up untill 1945 the Japanese emporer was a god. He definitely existed, I've seen pictures. Of course you could argue that he wasn't really a god, but a whole bunch of people said he was, which is as much a claim as any other god has.

found this link on a fluffy website I visit: http://channels.isp.netscape.com/whatsnew/default.jsp?story=20060926-0852 There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"It makes more sense to believe in God than to not believe. If you believe, and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do not believe, and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way. " My webpage is at: http://www.bookscape.co.uk

"If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way" Except for Sunday morning lay-ins and all that extramarital sex.

I'll take my chances. Why wait for rewards in an afterlife that may not come? Believing for that reason alone seems rather a selfish motive, anyway. "I don't like laws. religions, rules. I don't like to be shaped by society."

I've remembered! The thing Patmac refers to is called Pascal's Wager. (that's been bothering me for over an hour now)

Hi Maddan, sorry about that. I put Blaise Pascal in my subject line But it appears to have vanished. My webpage is at: http://www.bookscape.co.uk

Don't apologise, I enjoyed my little eureka moment (small things)