Does God exist? the definitive answer.

Briony Noh

I know the bible was written by men and I understand the temptation most men give in to: to embellish their tales ("I only had one drink", "I spent the whole day putting up two shelves", "God appeared to me and said I should nip out and spread The Word"). I have a personal conviction that the various old-testament versions of God (there appear to be two or three distinct characters with different levels of warlike vengefulness, until the New Testament when it's all love your this and honour thy that) demonstrate an editorial inconsistency from book to book. While they all have an underlying theme of unconditional obedience, which suggests (to me) a cultural rather than godlike requirement, the needs of the prevalent culture at various times appear to make different demands on the God of the literature, and reciprocally that God makes different demands on His Chosen. This is my view of the biblical God, but I can't prove it, only deduce it. I suppose they'd call that 'faith'.

Now, the real God is, as far as I can figure it out, something that doesn't give a toss who begots whom and what's next on the smiting list, but is something we are all connected with every day of our lives, the essence of ourselves and each other. As hippies once proclaimed, "We are stardust!" and God is in all the stars.

If you want to believe that there's a God in a palace on a throne having chats with Popes and philosophers, though, then I suppose I have no right to take that away from you. Quite possibly, this works for you, but sadly it doesn't for me. Actually, not sadly. Because in that view is implicit a God that actively permitted the slaughter of six million of his most devoted followers. In mine, that slaughter was human in origin and dispatch and, having allowed us free will, why should God interfere. In mine, within that vast, incomprehensible figure of six million there is a smaller, noble figure numbering the minor triumphs and personal miracles that stopped it becoming seven million or eight or ten or twelve.

Villain

Well actually I'm not sure what I believe, I had always believed that God did excist but that he was a cruel bastard, but lately I'm more enclined to think he doesn't excist at all, it's simply something humans have created to try and use fear as a method to prevent sin.

Briony Noh

I've come to believe that as he became more aware of his surroundings, man saw nature and science and caught his first glimpse of God. Then leaders, rulers and guardians of the public morals got involved and crassly, imperiously humanised Him, set rules for our behaviour towards Him that suited themselves and perverted Him to man's will. But there is no Him. There is no God like that. God, if there is a definition it really ought to include phrases like "like nothing you can imagine" because it doesn't come from imagination, it comes from experience and a recognition that God is in surprising coincidences and in the warmth of moment of content. We shouldn't dread God or find fault with his handling of our history, as men and presidents and kings and priests and popes might wish we would. That fault lies solely and completely in the hearts and deeds of men.

Pocari Sweat

I think it is only fair in these modern times to own up to man's mistakes and separate god from organised religion especially its poor history. We know most religious texts are inconsistent, but we don't know a jot about god for sure. You could even try to separate the church from religion but thats not going to happen, it is just a money making machine, the both go together.

Separate the church from god and you would be free to think more optimistic thoughts about what a proper god could be like, without the shackles.

Briony Nohs what she is talking about, and it would be refreshing if more people did. The dogmatic types including the religious lobby and the atheists are so touchy, you are likely to get removed from their forums if you ask to many questions.

McGinty

Maybe God does not 'think' in the way that we do, maybe the God 'all knowing' bit has nothing to do with our (human perception) of knowing/knowledge. I see it that we aquire knowledge through our senses, even though many argue otherwise, but there is apart of us that is aware of those thoughts, senses, feeling, etc, maybe that is to do with God, maybe God is awareness, not thinking.

Pocari Sweat

I think, unlike in the christain forum, the concept of god is a conundrum that is a bit of a wet fart and not worth bothering with too much.

withneill

God is Dog backwards

18AD

God already knows he doesn't exist.

Laplandman

God already knows he doesn't exist.

how?

18AD

Laplandman wrote:

how?

I was joking, to be honest.

But I'll give it a shot anyhow:

Answer: Because I have faith in the idea that he knows he doesn't exist. I don't have to prove anything when I have faith. :rolleyes:
Or: If we have a definition of "god". The real god will know that the fake definition of god we have created isn't real. Like saying, "the real god knows the fake god doesn't exist", just they both have the same name, hence the confusion.

That's all I can think of now, hopefiully I've worded that correctly.

FromFarEast

It necessarily depends on the definition of existence.

God doesn't exist in the physical world.
To prove his existence is typically a probatio diabolica, so it may be "proper" (not absolutely true) to say that he doesn't.
But in the world as representation, he does exist.
That is, when people think of him, he appears in their notions.
In this sense, ironically he exists even in representation of the atheists claiming that he doesn't.

Existence can be defined not only by materialism but also by idealism.


sorry for my broken English...

muesli_offire

God is pretty tall.

But not as tall as Macgyver.

UU

Well such a question has no definate answer so it seems rather pointless to continue debating over an infinite question. Besides, I got this extract from "The Power Of Now" by Eckhart Tolle, which sums up what he views "God" as in realistic terms IMO. God is one of those things which means something different to different people. I felt Tolle's view was the closest I've gotten in years though.

Q. When you say Being, are you talking about God? If you are, then why don't you say it?

A. The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse. I use it sometimes, but I do so sparingly. By misuse, I mean people who have never even glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness behind that word, use it with great conviction, as if they knew what it is that they are talking about. Or they argue against it, as if they knew what it is that they are denying. This misuse gives rise to absurd beliefs, assertions and egoic delusions, such as "My or our God is the only true God, and your God is false," or Nietzsche's famous statement "God is dead."

The word God has become a closed concept. The moment the word is uttered, a mental image is created, no longer, perhaps of an old man with a white beard*, but still a mental representation of someone or something outside you, and, yes, almost inevitably a male someone or something.

Neither God nor Being nor any other word can define or explain the ineffable reality behind the word, so the only important question is whether the word is a help or a hindrance in enabling you to experience 'That' towards which it points. Does it point beyond itself to that transcendental reality, or does it lend itself too easily to becoming no more than an idea in your head that you believe in, a mental idol?

The word Being explains nothing, but nor does God. Being, however, has the advantage that it is an open concept. It does not reduce the infinite invisible to a finite entity. It is impossible to form a mental image of it. Nobody can claim exclusive possession of Being. It is your very essence, and it is immediately accessible to you as the feeling of your own presence, the realisation I am that is prior to 'I am this' or 'I am that'. So it is only a small step from the word Being to the experience of Being.

*That image is actually a portrayal of the Pagan Roman god Zeus, did you know.

bassist

Please ignore the last four threads, it took me ages to write this and I kept fecking it up...
This is what I really wanted to say....

As far as Im concerned God(as we know that word) does not exist, here's my opinion why:

Billions of years ago there was a cosmic event that started our Galaxy. There are many theories as to what this event was, I believe it was the colliding of two stars. A massive explosion occurred and our solar system was created from trillions of different particles being flung out into Space. The planet's of our solar system(which where created from these particles) where sucked into the gravitational pull of the Sun(the centre of this cosmic explosion) and where set on a course of rotation around it.

Earth at this time was a planet of rock and different gas’s formed around it creating an atmosphere. These gas’s reacted with the planet surface creating an ice formation over the planet. After millions of years this ice melted, creating a planet of water, which the atmosphere held onto the planet(like it still is today).

At some point in time a massive asteroid hit the Earth and changed its position in the solar system pushing it closer to the Sun. Another result of this asteroid was the creation of our moon(which has been proven to of broken of from the Earth). The moon settled into the gravitational pull of the Earth and since has orbited the Earth. As a result the moons own gravitational pull began to control the flow of the water on the Earths surface. This water began evaporating and simultaneously life on Earth exploded in the form of Bacteria. The water started evaporating and for the first time land as we know it was formed(the first land mass to appear was what we know as Australia). The water kept evaporating and the undivided continents formed.

Sorry if this is going on a bit, but, it will all become relevant later....

As I said life exploded on earth in the form of bacteria. This bacteria started a cycle of evolution which billions of years later had resulted in animals which we call Dinosaurs along with millions of other species of animals such as apes, reptiles, birds, insects, fe-lines etc etc etc...

These animals kept evolving at different rates and speeds until an ice age occurred and froze every living organism on Earth(the cause of this ice age is still being debated today, but most educated minds on the subject all agree that it did happened). Millions of years passed and the ice melted. Animals again began to roam the Earth only now one species had evolved at an astounding rated. The ape species had evolved into a new "highbreed" species who had began to use their brain like no other animal in the history of our planet. (Im not too sure but as far as I know the term used by arceologists to describe these animals is "homo-erctous", our earliest living ancestor's). Homo-erectous started grouping together in pacts and began hunting using tools and for the first time their brains to catch food in the way of other less evolved animals. The meat, which was now available for the first time to homo-erectous, gave him vital vitamins and minerals, which gave his evolution rate a jump-start and eventually evolved his brain to such an extent
that he was the soon to become the dominant species on the planet.

Fastforward tens of thousands of years and homo-erectous had evolved into homo-saptions. His brain had evolved to the point where thought and conclusion was part of everyday life. He had mastered the art of speech and could communicate with one another. The ability to ask questions and the ability to answer them where now just beginning to be used. The Earth as it is today had certain aspects to it which he could not understand(volcanic eruptions, tsunami’s, rain, the seasons, earthquakes, tornado's, hurricanes etc...). He attempted to use his new all powerful tool, his brain, to answer why these events occurred. But as all powerfull as his brain was he could not understand what caused these events. Therefore he began to metaphor what these events where caused by and this is where he came up with the idea of THE HIGHER POWER!

The Higher Power was interpreted understandably as the "God" of Fire, Water, Earth and Wind. This gave birth to what we know as the "Pagan Religions". The act of worship came form the notion of trying to please the "Gods" so that great tragedies would be avoided and the now human race could survive.

As we evolved men and women again began to philosophy as to the nature of this new higher power. We began as we learned more of the Earth, to say that "god" was a being and that "god" was like us. This I believe was the birth of religion, as we know it today. The interpretation of the higher power was so we can understand what we cannot conceive. The human mind in my opinion created the idea of "God" so we can have an answer to the questions we cant answer.

We (the human race) as far as im concerned, have evolved past our physical abilities. Our brains have gone so far past our bodies that we have now accepted "God" as a conceivable answer to why we are here. We have told ourselves over thousands of years that there must be a reason to why we're here.

My opinion, there is no reason!

I understand that alot of people will have contradicting ideas and I would be more then happy to discuss them...

Jaysus that’s not bad for someone who failed his leaving...

simu

bassist wrote:

Please ignore the last four threads, it took me ages to write this and I kept fecking it up...
This is what I really wanted to say....

other posts deleted

-simu (forum mod)

Jackie laughlin

Those who equate God with being or any other variant of pantheism are evading the question or rather moving to a quite different question. The God in question is self aware and "personal" in the sense of distinct and separate. Now, it's a wonderful question. (Yes, I'm being serious and literal.)

However, neither the question nor the answer - were it to be reached - would have any effect on how we live.

muesli_offire

Those who equate God with being or any other variant of pantheism are evading the question or rather moving to a quite different question. The God in question is self aware and "personal" in the sense of distinct and separate.

Unless you go with an evolutionary pantheism (a la Max Scheler, or [arguably] Hegel): God 'coming-to-be'.

Jackie laughlin

Muesli,
This is new to me. Would you oblige by expanding a little and saving me a deal of reading. (I've read Hegel but a long time ago.)

For me my second comment was the more important.

Playboy

bassist wrote:

Please ignore the last four threads, it took me ages to write this and I kept fecking it up...
This is what I really wanted to say....

As far as Im concerned God(as we know that word) does not exist, here's my opinion why:

Billions of years ago there was a cosmic event that started our Galaxy. There are many theories as to what this event was, I believe it was the colliding of two stars. A massive explosion occurred and our solar system was created from trillions of different particles being flung out into Space. The planet's of our solar system(which where created from these particles) where sucked into the gravitational pull of the Sun(the centre of this cosmic explosion) and where set on a course of rotation around it.

Earth at this time was a planet of rock and different gas’s formed around it creating an atmosphere. These gas’s reacted with the planet surface creating an ice formation over the planet. After millions of years this ice melted, creating a planet of water, which the atmosphere held onto the planet(like it still is today).

At some point in time a massive asteroid hit the Earth and changed its position in the solar system pushing it closer to the Sun. Another result of this asteroid was the creation of our moon(which has been proven to of broken of from the Earth). The moon settled into the gravitational pull of the Earth and since has orbited the Earth. As a result the moons own gravitational pull began to control the flow of the water on the Earths surface. This water began evaporating and simultaneously life on Earth exploded in the form of Bacteria. The water started evaporating and for the first time land as we know it was formed(the first land mass to appear was what we know as Australia). The water kept evaporating and the undivided continents formed.

Sorry if this is going on a bit, but, it will all become relevant later....

As I said life exploded on earth in the form of bacteria. This bacteria started a cycle of evolution which billions of years later had resulted in animals which we call Dinosaurs along with millions of other species of animals such as apes, reptiles, birds, insects, fe-lines etc etc etc...

These animals kept evolving at different rates and speeds until an ice age occurred and froze every living organism on Earth(the cause of this ice age is still being debated today, but most educated minds on the subject all agree that it did happened). Millions of years passed and the ice melted. Animals again began to roam the Earth only now one species had evolved at an astounding rated. The ape species had evolved into a new "highbreed" species who had began to use their brain like no other animal in the history of our planet. (Im not too sure but as far as I know the term used by arceologists to describe these animals is "homo-erctous", our earliest living ancestor's). Homo-erectous started grouping together in pacts and began hunting using tools and for the first time their brains to catch food in the way of other less evolved animals. The meat, which was now available for the first time to homo-erectous, gave him vital vitamins and minerals, which gave his evolution rate a jump-start and eventually evolved his brain to such an extent
that he was the soon to become the dominant species on the planet.

Fastforward tens of thousands of years and homo-erectous had evolved into homo-saptions. His brain had evolved to the point where thought and conclusion was part of everyday life. He had mastered the art of speech and could communicate with one another. The ability to ask questions and the ability to answer them where now just beginning to be used. The Earth as it is today had certain aspects to it which he could not understand(volcanic eruptions, tsunami’s, rain, the seasons, earthquakes, tornado's, hurricanes etc...). He attempted to use his new all powerful tool, his brain, to answer why these events occurred. But as all powerfull as his brain was he could not understand what caused these events. Therefore he began to metaphor what these events where caused by and this is where he came up with the idea of THE HIGHER POWER!

The Higher Power was interpreted understandably as the "God" of Fire, Water, Earth and Wind. This gave birth to what we know as the "Pagan Religions". The act of worship came form the notion of trying to please the "Gods" so that great tragedies would be avoided and the now human race could survive.

As we evolved men and women again began to philosophy as to the nature of this new higher power. We began as we learned more of the Earth, to say that "god" was a being and that "god" was like us. This I believe was the birth of religion, as we know it today. The interpretation of the higher power was so we can understand what we cannot conceive. The human mind in my opinion created the idea of "God" so we can have an answer to the questions we cant answer.

We (the human race) as far as im concerned, have evolved past our physical abilities. Our brains have gone so far past our bodies that we have now accepted "God" as a conceivable answer to why we are here. We have told ourselves over thousands of years that there must be a reason to why we're here.

My opinion, there is no reason!

I understand that alot of people will have contradicting ideas and I would be more then happy to discuss them...

Jaysus that’s not bad for someone who failed his leaving...

Your post has a major flaw. Who created the two stars that collided causing the cosmic event that eventually led to evolution. What is your ultimate cause of the universe? Who dictated the laws of the universe and put the big bang into action etc. ?

Jackie laughlin

Playboy,
Suppose you get a definitive answer to this question, what difference will it make?

bassist

Playboy wrote:

Your post has a major flaw. Who created the two stars that collided causing the cosmic event that eventually led to evolution. What is your ultimate cause of the universe? Who dictated the laws of the universe and put the big bang into action etc. ?

Im not even going to attempt to answer that one. I dont know but I certanly dont think that our interpretation of "God" sat on a cloud for 6 six days and created the Earth and the Universe, and then rested on the sabbit. How could we start to attempt to say who or what created the Universe when we dont even understand our own Solar system. we're stuck on this planet in our little corner of space, the furtherest any human has been away from the Earth is the dark side of the moon. we have no first hand knowlegde of the universe to make that decision. as i said the idea of "god" was created by men who needed and answer to what he couldn't understand. we're so small and insignificant that we dont pocess the knowledge to make that decision. how could we be that egotistical to think that we, on Earth, in this little solar system, in this little galaxy come with the answer to who created it all?

Pocari Sweat

Its all to do with a load of atoms that were put in the universe by someone. These atoms make up all the planets, stars and black holes etc.
So who put the atoms in there in the first place, and why is the universe so big, why couldn't they have made it a bit smaller?

Most people blame a god/s or something for rustling up all the stuff in the universe and probly the universe itself. But who invented him/her or them?

And if someone invented a god, who invented them there that made him? and so on.

The fundamentals of agnosticm is to weigh up the god / universe argument, look at the hard facts, and say right, I'm off t' pub cos I can't dispell or confirm the god type cryptic teasers, so a few pints it is.

Being all for, or all against, is the choice of those that want to argue the toss, but to be open minded is to say both the extreme camps are faffing about a bit cos neither has any proof, and one side cancels out the other anyway.

Jackie laughlin

Some are aware of the evidence or lack of it and of the arguments for and against, and DECIDE to believe.

eddyc

Just jumping in here, cant be arsed reading all the other posts so if you've covered this completely ignore this.
My two cents....
The question is flawed, Does God exist is a completely meaningless question, there is no way of measuring the existence of deities, we can measure the existence of carbon and oxygen and the like, but as far as I know there is no machine on this planet that can measure the existence of god. There is no measure of godness as far as I know, does anyone know of one?You may say, ah but you cannot disprove it , the burden of proof though unfortunately is on the person who suggests that god or gods do infact exist.

Do you mean 'could god exist?' , or 'do you believe god exists?'

Jackie laughlin

Eddy,
The question isn't especially flawed. There are many questions which fall into the realm of, let's call it, the speculative. Off the top of my head: any question which science cannot address or has not yet addressed or for which science has not developed a test or any working hypothesis. The God question is interesting but there haven't been any new arguments in centuries. We are, for example, left speculating about prime cause.

My difficulty is the zeal with which some people approach the issue. I can't see how proof would change the human situation. I recall a story from my school days and I think it concerned St. Francis. He was sweeping the cloisters and someone asked him what he would do if God revealed Himself as a certainty. The saint replied that he would continue sweeping.

eddyc

Do you agree that asking someone "does 'X' exist?" , is the equivelent of asking "does 'Y' exist?", or do you think that the God question is a special case because many people believe it to exist already?

Pocari Sweat

One guaranteed certaintly is, despite having 127 posts so far, there is not yet an established answer.

A further guarantee will be that after another 10,000 posts, I am sure there will still be no answer, and so on.

The ongoing thousands of posts here with no outcome, are the sort of reflections of the trillions of thoughts about this question, humanity has had in the last few thousand years, again with no established outcome, except a lot of blood and tears.

Maybe a god would be thinking, save yer next trillion ponderings and instead save your time and go and do good deeds for each other, and don't worry about gods, they can take care of themselves.

banaman

Firstly define God.
Secondly define exist.
Without agreed definitions of these terms the discussion cannot take place

bassist

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Its all to do with a load of atoms that were put in the universe by someone.

why does it have to be some one? why does it have to be at a certan point in time?
do you not think that there are things in this universe that our feeble little brains cannot understand?
That there our other forms of life in it and that maybe they have there own versions of god?

Pocari Sweat

God could be a fat ferret called fred, and he could have indeed shoved in the atoms in there.

There is absolutely no proof that he is not infact a fat ferret called fred and it is just as likely that he is a fat ferret as anything else.

Pocari Sweat

What is unlikely is that most popular organised religions would not want to invent a god looking like a fat ferret, and instead make them look like a caucasion white male, indeed the same appearance as say the caucasion white males that have their oars in the running of many popular religions.

Any bookmaker though, based on any logic, would still have to give the fat ferret a 50/50 chance against any other invented idea of what a god should be.

It just seems generally its a matter of taste as to what flavour of god is invented.

18AD

Pocari Sweat wrote:

What is unlikely is that most popular organised religions would not want to invent a god looking like a fat ferret, and instead make them look like a caucasion white male, indeed the same appearance as say the caucasion white males that have their oars in the running of many popular religions.

Any bookmaker though, based on any logic, would still have to give the fat ferret a 50/50 chance against any other invented idea of what a god should be.

It just seems generally its a matter of taste as to what flavour of god is invented.

Although the vision of a perfect caucasian man could be explained as an archetype. This would probably only apply to white males or white females who see men as superior. Even so, someone tortured by ferrets may infact believe that the fat ferret king is leading the show.

Pocari Sweat

They could also believe that a king of the fat ferrets could instead be an underworld leader like Satan.

Ferrets are after all, able to burrow under ground and sneak about a bit, and could give you a nasty nip.

Just as easy a fat ferret, as a bloke with horns and goat legs, stitched together like some kind of daft concoction from the imagination.

FromFarEast

When we decide if something exists, we must consider whether it conforms to the definition of existence or not.
So when we decide if God exists, we should do it in the same way.

If you insist he does exist or he doesn't exist, then what definition is your opinion based on?

banaman

FromFarEast wrote:

When we decide if something exists, we must consider whether it conforms to the definition of existence or not.
So when we decide if God exists, we should do it in the same way.

If you insist he does exist or he doesn't exist, then what definition is your opinion based on?

Assuming for the moment that I pass your criteria for existence, then since I exist we then come to the existence of what I experience as Not-Me, ie "the world outside my skin which I experience and interact with".
Now I know from experience(or think I know since memory is far from a perfect replica) that if I do certain things certain other things happen, eg if i drop my glass of beer on a stone floor I have to buy another, it never, in my experience, lands upright and undamaged.
We then come to ideas(beliefs if you will) as to where the world of Not-Me came from, is going and what, if any, its purpose might be.
Given that we humans have a need to ask the "why" question(try talking to a curious three-year old)then we traditionally attributed questions about why life etc to the existence of a deity or deities.
However since the advent of the Renaissance and the growth of the Scientific approach most people beleive that there is no God and that the Universe(which most of us cannot see) exists due to the "Laws of Physics". Most people cannot prove any of this so on an everyday level a belief in Science is as much of a "leap of faith" as belief in a deity.
My own view? I was given a good scientific education and have read fairly widely since. If belief in a deity helps you to make sense of your world then fair enough. Likewise a belief in Sience.
The problems start when zealots from one deity or another, or for a purely scientific viewpoint want to inflict/impose their views on the rest of us.
So does God exist? I believe in a deity but I also understand and have faith in science in some respects. As a definitive answer it is in that good old Scottish legal verdict Not-Proven.

Pocari Sweat

What god is it the Hindus have?

gagga

Any answer to this question will always remain unsatisfactory to someone. So probably best to give it a rest.

For my money the simple truth is there is no god or gods other than those we create ourselves. We are but a cosmic fluke. Accept this and move on with your short life.

Playboy

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Playboy,
Suppose you get a definitive answer to this question, what difference will it make?

I dont necessarly think there is a definitive answer to the question but I do believe that in asking the question and attempting to answer the question that we can rule what God is not and this can help a person to grow in their understanding and awareness of their own place in this reality. Which is always a good thing imo.

Jackie laughlin

Interesting point. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the search for God, despite knowing that it will fail, is a good in itself.

Playboy

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Interesting point. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the search for God, despite knowing that it will fail, is a good in itself.

Absolutely

lebogurl1988

God does exist then who made the sun earth and human it did not make it self so god does exist.

18AD

lebogurl1988 wrote:

God does exist then who made the sun earth and human it did not make it self so god does exist.

If someone or something did make it, you don't know what it was, means it's an unknown creator. Imposing ideas on it that make it more than an unknown creator seems illogical to me. Yet calling this unknown creator, God, is totally up to you.

Pocari Sweat

The Oxford an Cambridge Dictionaries have decided this year after much discussion that god does not exist.

Their entries for the year 2007, are going to conclude that god was a mis-spelling and the bible, regardless of its long run, does not have as much clarity and clear facts as a dictionary, so it is void because of its discrepancies, contradictions and lack of conclusion.

R0C0

There is a post on page 2 of this Debate, written by someone who goes by the name 'RealCar'. It completely shoots AmigoBoys 'theory' to pieces and you should all read it!!

Procrastinator

Pocari Sweat wrote:

The Oxford an Cambridge Dictionaries have decided this year after much discussion that god does not exist.

Their entries for the year 2007, are going to conclude that god was a mis-spelling and the bible, regardless of its long run, does not have as much clarity and clear facts as a dictionary, so it is void because of its discrepancies, contradictions and lack of conclusion.

I know i'm being a wally here but

The OED won't have an 2007 edition. It takes years, sometimes decades to compile an edition and to date, the've only ever compiled two of them. Three is underway as we speak and won't be ready for at least another 5 years.

The OED doesn't care about discrepencies or conclusions, only 5 quoted, that's written uses of a word to constitute a mention. Then it lists the word's best known etymology.

So theoretically, we could invent a word here, try to get it printed in 5 publications and then submit it to the OED for inclusion in the third edition. Actually, that might be quite cool. Could invent some kind of Boardism for inclusion.


Anyway, is there a God?
Yes...if that's what you believe.

Pocari Sweat

Sorry, it was Chambers, which is better than Oxford anyway.

Procrastinator

Pocari Sweat wrote:

Sorry, it was Chambers, which is better than Oxford anyway.

depends on what you mean by 'better'. Simpler, easier to use...yes.
Authoratitive...no

God...yes...If you wish to believe it
My chief problem with this stuff is the almost religious zeal with which ahtiests or agnostics, or rationali humanists or scientists prosecute their own anti-god arguments.
They argue vociferously against others' beliefs in God, as being naive and delusional, They are just as much the zealots as those who are spouting on about being saved, that you or i should be saved or warning us about hell etc.
Lived in the North for a while and almost every saturday there was some crackpot in town with a megaphone yelling on about sin and the devil

Sheesh...


about belief in God. I think belief serves a helpful and practical purpose with some people, and I think that's enough to support the idea of some sort of God in existence.
I'm not advocating god as a reason for political decisions though. Like the French, I feel that government should be secularised as much as possible.

And the actual existence of God is, i feel, directly linked to God's usefulness to individuals as a reassuring concept or as a means of ordering their lives according to rules and tenets that they don't have to compose themselves, or whatever.
Desire, need, self-helping fantasy, like our own selective memories, serves a healing or even a guilty purpose. psychologically, we'll believe whatever we need or desire to believe at a given time.
I believe myself, that this is the reaon for people to have moments of clarity or moments when God touched them...indissolubly linked with the needd for such things to 'turn' their lives or thoughts around.

Personally I Can't divorce psychology from pure theology. Phenomenology, I think at least, is an essential element in this debate.

And on that basis, on the basis of what's experienced by millions of people who are neither sick nor delusional, there must be a God.

Scigaithris

If you truly believe that God exists, then for you, God does exist.

Tar.Aldarion

What kind of statement is that?
Master of the obvious?


If you think you are right, then for you, you think you are right.

Playboy

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

What kind of statement is that?
Master of the obvious?


If you think you are right, then for you, you think you are right.

I think you are missing his point.