There also is a chance that Jesus is actually the Son of God, and the purpose of His Church is our salvation. Just sayin. — Rank Amateur

Do you know how many chances there are? There's also a chance that I'm actually the Son of Zeus and Liza Minnelli, and the purpose of My Sarcasm is the complete and utter destruction of the universe as we know it.

Just sayin'.

And the same can be said for some atheist ideologues. The mindset you are reasonably objecting to isn't a function of religion particularly, but the human condition more generally. It's very important to some of us to possess The Answer, whatever the chosen answer may be. — Jake

And the same can be said for some political ideologues. (Nuclear weapons, cough cough).

But it is a requirement of some religions according to the testimony of many adherents of these religions themselves. Ram is a good example of that.

And the same can be said for some political ideologues. — S

Yes, agreed.

(Nuclear weapons, cough cough). — S

If you keep coughing like that it's going to lead directly to the immediate end of all life in the universe, and you'd better agree with that right now or you're going to hell!!!! :smile:

But it is a requirement of some religions according to the testimony of many adherents of these religions themselves. Ram is a good example of that. — S

Some religions are just another example of ideological certainty. This forum, all philosophy forums, are filled with comments from those who suffer from atheist certainty.

Some religions are just another example of ideological certainty. This forum, all philosophy forums, are filled with comments from those who suffer from atheist certainty. — Jake

In my assessment, some religions are better than others, just as some forms of atheism are better than others, and misplaced certainty is a factor-against in this assessment. But the topic is religion, not atheism.

Paul didn't have a problem per se with Philosophy (neither did Tertullian), but he held different schools to be in conflict with his view, and inferior to revelation. — All sight

Fair point. But I still feel that appealing to scriptural authority doesn’t have a place in a philosophy forum, unless in support of a philosophical argument. I did a search on Apostle Paul and Greek Philosophy and found a very good post on the subject:

the role of Greek thought on Christian is not only paramount but foundational. That is why evangelical theology seems so patently ridiculous, the rich vein of philosophy hidden under the sentimental display of "enthusiastic prayer". In fact many Chrurch Fathers condemn such "enthusiasm" as part of an old orgiastic pagan way of worshiping unfit for the Christian, who should use contemplation (theoria) and the intellect (nous) to know God, a God who is simultaneously hidden and revealed, transcendent and immanent, known through his energies in creation but whose essence is fundamentally unknowable--finally God is an awe inspiring living fire not for the fainthearted. The ideal is both an individual philosophical understanding, and a community of the spirit (pneuma).

My overall attitude is, I suppose, nearer what the Church would designate ‘pagan’ or perhaps ‘gnostic’ in that I don’t accept that any religious tradition has a monopoly on revelation, but that religions generally are evidence of a reality which is not comprehended by natural philosophy.

What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

Put simply: Religion is a method for dealing with the stresses of life (no inherent meaning to life, unfairness of society, worrying about death and dead loved ones, etc.), just as delusions help some people get through life. It allows them to cover up reality with a fake one that makes them feel more comfortable with themselves and their place in the world.

There is no God but Allah. Islam is the true religion, Allah is our Creator. — Ram

Most other monotheistic religions say the same thing about their god and religion.

How anyone can look at creation and believe it all just came out of nowhere, randomly- baffles me. — Ram

Who said that it came out of nowhere randomly? How anyone can believe that a universe can't just exist, but a god can, baffles me. What makes god so special that is doesn't need a creator, but the universe does?

People insult me for believing in God and act like I'm a neanderthal.... I am wary of posting here and think I'll be met with a bunch of belligerant liberals. But whether you agree with my views or not- I represent a viewpoint which might not be otherwise represented here. — Ram

But you have insulted us (our intelligence) with your incoherent post with no evidence or logic. When you do that, expect to be rejected and insulted yourself.

I also think you are misusing the term, "liberal". The people that are commonly called "liberals" in America are actually authoritarian socialists, not liberals at all. Libertarians are the only true liberals.

You have a perfect right to believe it, but it's not really that relevant in a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer

All due respect, I disagree. The proposition that God is, and the purpose of religion is salvation, is as valid a proposition as the others proposed here. And although agreed, the ultimate belief would be based on faith, it is a proposition that can be tested by reason.

I see no philosophical difference between this proposition as an answer to the op, as many of the others expressed, sitting on an equally faith based belief that God is not.

At the core it is a human hubris in some that we have the ability to reason all, and that which with can not exist by reason does not exist. Interestingly, there are almost an unlimited number of historical examples showning this to be false. Yet, the intellectual high ground is still claimed by many, who paradoxically by their faith in reason, declare its superiority to faith.

There certainly is no technical reason as to why scripture doesn't count as authoritative philosophically (as if theology and religion isn't a philosophical subject), but an authority holds sway because we agree that it is authoritative in the first place. Normally we reason about stuff, and use various sources as references, evidences, and things, rather than just "this says it, therefore it is true" (though, just look at the unsupported assertions that fly around the place with zero support of any kind, not even a reason given... just flat "this is the way it is" assertions that don't even leave room for response).

The only real reason to avoid scripture as an authority is when not everyone accepts it as an authority, and doing so would be offensive, or ineffective. It of course would always be bad for to just assert something is the case without giving any reasons whatsoever. Though I think that what is philosophical is the subjects, and not really particular forms of engagement with them.

I would even add that traditionally "philosophy" is not mere idle talk, but meant a way of life, which is precisely why religion is one of the center stage subjects, and the idle musings on technical subjects that one in no sense practices is what is not philosophical.

Okay. :smile: That's cool too.

Have you ever encountered a Carl Jung book called Man and his Symbols? — Wayfarer

Never actually had the privilege of reading it myself.

They are symbolic expressions of all manner of existential and cultural meanings. — Wayfarer

So basically it is whatever it says to you?

I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc. This is better than narcissism. Interactions with other people doesn’t have to be about common goals; I think we benefit (both individually and collectively) from positive socialization. So there’s a lot of good that can come out of religion. Some bad comes out as well (e.g. child molestation, organizing hate against gays, …) but on balance, I think there is more good than harm. — Relativist

You make the multi-faith movement sound really cool. :up:

There also is a chance that Jesus is actually the Son of God, and the purpose of His Church is our salvation. Just sayin. — Rank Amateur

Right, and I would agree. I think that mainline churches make a lot of sense in a post truth age.

Religion is to offer a unifying vision of human life. One interacts with a religion (and its adherents) if one finds its vision of human life inspiring, or even merely satisfying. — Janus

I even find that there are some aspects of non-religion that can be satisfying.

People insult me for believing in God and act like I'm a neanderthal.... — Ram

You're not, you're a highly developed neanderthal blessed by the God of creation with the ability to believe.

Sad. (I sound like Donald Trump) :lol: I wonder if it's just natural for religious leaders to abuse people or if it's a product of the modern church.

I'm against special treatment for religion. All religions, like all philosophies, have their pros and cons. — S

True, truth can be hard to take in. I know that's not what you mean but I just thought I'd just add to the argument.

Yet some religious folks would have you believe that their religion is the one true religion that everyone should follow, that's it's wrong to be critical of their religion, that their religion gets a special exemption, and should not be viewed in a similar vein to philosophies or even other religions. — S

This is why I believe Christianity went through a reformation.

Right, and I would agree. I think that mainline churches make a lot of sense in a post truth age. — MountainDwarf

And you know, as a matter of fact, what truth is. That will certainly save us all a great deal of angst.

I wonder if it's just natural for religious leaders to abuse people or if it's a product of the modern church. — MountainDwarf

I think most people are drawn to religion by its power instead of its wisdom and so inevitably stray from the path to some degree. However, towards modern times religious leaders have been abusing their authority with increasing deliberateness.

The proposition that God is, and the purpose of religion is salvation, is as valid a proposition as the others proposed here. And although agreed, the ultimate belief would be based on faith, it is a proposition that can be tested by reason. — Rank Amateur

Right. But here, you’re putting forward a philosophical argument, rather than evangelising as such. I am very open to reasoned argument for religious ideas, and I read quite a lot of philosophical theology. What I'm wary of is evangelicals seeking to convert. OK, sometimes the distinction is a fine line, but still. And also I'm particularly wary of Protestant evangelism, because of its prior rejection of most of Christian Platonism.

I agree with most of what you say here, too. But the question of the nature of authority is still a delicate one. Authority of any kind can easily be abused, and trust manipulated. Sincere believers are capable of appalling things. But that said, I do accept that the testomony of sages and prophets may be trustworthy and sources of knowledge whereas these are all mostly rejected holus bolus in secular culture.

Years ago, I learned something from a book by Swami Vivekananda (who spoke at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893 and then toured the USA, one of the first Eastern spiritual teachers in the US.) He spoke of the 'six limbs of yoga' - raja, bhakti, jñāna, karma, mantra, and hatha. Each of these were adapted to a particular kind of mentality or disposition. jñāna is something like 'gnosis' - you can even see the etymological relationship between the two terms (as they come from the same indo-european root). Jñāna it is the 'yoga of discriminating wisdom' which enables the 'sadhaka' (aspirant) to 'discern the truth' (brahman).

'Bhakti' on the other hand, is devotional religion - like for instance the Hare Krishna movement but also evident in popular Christianity (i.e. the Mary cult) and in Pure Land Buddhism.

So these are like different levels of understanding within Hindu spiritual philosophies, adapted to different audiences and types of person.

Whereas, in Western culture, a kind of 'devotional' and populist attitude of 'bhakti' became predominant at the expense of the others. This is what is behind the emphasis in Christianity on 'right belief' (orthodoxy) at the expense of philosophical analysis. And that in turn is why we have this tremendous polarisation between belief and unbelief in Western culture; you're given the choice to either sign up, and believe what you're told, or reject belief altogether. I suppose when put in such peremptory terms it sounds rather a sweeping statement, but I have done quite a lot of reading on it, and I'm sure that this is one of the dynamics in Western culture.

I have a completely different epistemology than others here likely do.

I am operating from an entirely different framework.

I doubt you are going to accept my starting premises, I doubt I will accept yours. Our fundamental assumptions I doubt are the same.

The person here thus far are more interested in "winning" than discussion.

For me, it is very simple. I believe what I believe. Others believe the same, others don't believe the same. I am interested in discussion sure but I cannot make anyone believe things. If there's a specific question people have, people can ask it.

For me, it is very simple. I believe what I believe. Others believe the same, others don't believe the same. — Ram

Which is exactly why you ought not to be wasting time here. And I'm not saying that to flame you or troll you, but because your attitude makes 'reasoned debate' pointless.

Furthermore, the whole concept that a theist has to be able to provide some sort of "proof" that other people can see is absurd.

I've never seen Alaska. Alaska exists whether I've seen it or not.

The non-theists don't know why the theists believe. You don't know what the person has experienced to make them believe. I've read Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, Sagan, etc. I've studied the atheist side and I know it pretty well.

Dawkins is pretty shallow philosophically. Same for Sagan.

Russell is above them but I still think his arguments are weak. If anyone wants to discuss arguments, let them discuss them.

We are not disembodied minds. We are people and we have experiences. Allah guides whom He wills.

Epistemology from an Islamic perspective is totally different from most Western epistemology and Western-minded people will likely attack it because the epistemologies are alien to each other. My thinking won't necessarily fit into someone else's preconceived framework (frequently based on the presuppositions of the Enlightenment).

I wrote a blog post discussing this further https://entranceofcave.blogspot.com/2018/07/where-is-your-proof.html

I express what I believe, I believe what I believe. You believe differently. If you have an argument you'd like to discuss, let's discuss it.

Atheists tend to rely a whole lot on snark and this demonstrates that they are not operating from the vantage point of some sort of philosophical mountain top. Otherwise, they wouldn't need the gimmick of snark.

Christianity is based in grace though, not in deeds, not analysis, not even necessarily practice. It works for even the worst human beings. It's so easy, and effective. You can get as much as you can handle, as much as you're willing. You don't have to master yoga, spend 20 years meditating under the bodi tree. It's freely given, unmerited.

It's by far the easiest one. It seems so simple, repent, and accept Jesus, and there is no longer any need for the same sacrifices, mastery of practices as before. There is something about most other practices, and that is that the insights they gained through it, and the practices themselves differ greatly. They are not identical, and I wouldn't say that they don't work, but that doesn't make them equivalent. Most require ascetic dedication, but you could always just ask, and maybe you'll receive.

There is something about the arcane, philosophical, methodological mastery that renders other methods elitist. The ancient heroes, the masters, the unsurpassable, they speak to a special few. They tend to even recognize this, that for the layperson what is required is too involving, and thus the real high level discernment is only available to the dedicated ascetic. You have to be a special type of person to gain enlightenment, to be born into it, almost. To be a genius. Exceptional human being. Only the few can be freed.

Paul thought that education was good, and even helpful, but not necessary. I'm interested in ideas, in philosophy, but Christianity is indeed, through grace. Believe it, repent, be saved. Everyone, even the worst. Unmerited, nothing to discuss.

Similarly, one cannot get the results of yoga without mastery, or meditation without mastery, or virtue without mastery, and there is nothing to discuss, with respect to the necessity of that mastery. Plenty to discuss, but discussion will never deliver the results.

I even find that there are some aspects of non-religion that can be satisfying. — MountainDwarf

Do these non-religious "aspects" offer a unifying vision of life? This also raises the question of what counts as religious.

I also think you are misusing the term, "liberal". The people that are commonly called "liberals" in America are actually authoritarian socialists, not liberals at all. Libertarians are the only true liberals. — Harry Hindu

Also, just so you understand- I am against liberalism. I am not talking about The Democratic Party. I mean liberals.

I don't believe in liberalism. I am well aware of this line of thought that the liberals are wrong because they have strayed from liberalism. However, I'm against 19th century liberalism and previous liberalism too. I am not a liberal. Not remotely.

In fairness, though, I think it is the "modern" liberals I was referring to. But even the old-school liberals... I don't have anything to do with that either. I'm not for either of the two.

The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together.
— praxis

Surely this is a big factor. An essential purpose of religion? Ok, agreed.

But the primary purpose of religion is ultimately personal. — Jake

Social or personal doesn’t speak to purpose, and in any case, pretty much anything could be construed as ultimately personal, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Perhaps you mean something along the lines that salvation, which is experienced personally, is the purpose of religion. This cannot be the essential or primary purpose simply because salvation is unnecessary, or rather, salvation could mean being saved from a life of meaninglessness or anxious feelings of separateness.

There is no such thing as a personal religion. The enlightenment endowed us the freedom to seek out and develop our own spiritual experiences, insights, and philosophies.

Religions don't go on for thousands of years based on abstractions like "binding a community together in common values and purpose". — Jake

Successful religions last because they are meaningful. Purpose and values are components of meaning.

Given the above, we necessarily interact with religion socially. Glue has no purpose without things to bind.
— praxis

So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal? — MountainDwarf

Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful.

Furthermore, the whole concept that a theist has to be able to provide some sort of "proof" that other people can see is absurd.

I've never seen Alaska. Alaska exists whether I've seen it or not. — Ram

You could make the same arguments for the other religions, so you haven't yet differentiated yourself from any other religion.

The non-theists don't know why the theists believe. You don't know what the person has experienced to make them believe. I've read Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, Sagan, etc. I've studied the atheist side and I know it pretty well. — Ram

I used to be a theist. Now I'm an atheist. I know what theists believe because I used to believe. Knowing what I know now, it would be absurd for me to go back to believing it. Think about as trying to go back and believe in the Tooth Fairy - which has the same amount and type of evidence as the existence of any god.

We are not disembodied minds. We are people and we have experiences. Allah guides whom He wills — Ram

Then we believe what we believe based on his will and therefore are not responsible for own actions or beliefs. We believe what we believe because he wills it. You have no independence and are not in control of your own actions.

Epistemology from an Islamic perspective is totally different from most Western epistemology and Western-minded people will likely attack it because the epistemologies are alien to each other. My thinking won't necessarily fit into someone else's preconceived framework (frequently based on the presuppositions of the Enlightenment). — Ram

No. You haven't even made any argument that is any different from any other religious belief or the result of a delusion.

Then we believe what we believe based on his will and therefore are not responsible for own actions or beliefs. We believe what we believe because he wills it. You have no independence and are not in control of your own actions. — Harry Hindu

It is more complex than that. Allah chooses who He guides and Allah is Just.

I used to be a theist. Now I'm an atheist. I know what theists believe because I used to believe.

.
No, you don’t.
.
You know what some Theists believe.
.
You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said.
.

Knowing what I know now, it would be absurd for me to go back to believing it.

.
Depending on what you used to believe, that may very well be true.
.

Think about as trying to go back and believe in the Tooth Fairy - which has the same amount and type of evidence as the existence of any god.

.
…that you believed in :D
.
Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist.
.
Michael Ossipoff

No, you don’t.
.
You know what some Theists believe.
.
You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said. — Michael Ossipoff

After over 20 years of being a theist and then the next 26 years of being an atheist that interacted with theists, I have yet to meet one theist that didn't make the same kind of arguments and make the same mistakes in logic. You and Ram are making the same claims. They are no different than any other theist's claims.

Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist. — Michael Ossipoff

So then you must be an Aggressive Atheist against the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc., because you make claims of disbelief in such things, no? Strange that you seem to be an "Aggressive Atheist" yourself when it comes to all these other things. We both agree that those things do not exist. I am just declaring my disbelief in one more thing than you do - your particular god that you claim exists while rejecting all the others that have been claimed to exist. Why the particular preference for the god of the Jews? What does Ram say about the existence of the god of the Jews?

It is not fundamental to be open-minded to reasonable and logical solutions. You and Ram have yet to provide any.

It is more complex than that. Allah chooses who He guides and Allah is Just. — Ram

Uh huh. If it is so complex, and Allah's intentions are beyond our understanding, how is it that you have come to understand? Are you not making similar claims that one with delusions of grandeur would make?

Just replace "Allah" with the name of some other god and you have what every theist claims - that their god is just and omniscient. Again, what is so different from other theists claim? What reason would I have to choose Allah over the god of the Jews, or the Hindus?

Social or personal doesn’t speak to purpose, and in any case, pretty much anything could be construed as ultimately personal, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. — praxis

A personal purpose can be any methodology which helps heal the illusion of division which is fundamental to the human experience.

So for example, Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering. The typical person is not overly concerned with abstractions like enhancing social unity, but is instead engaging in religion to address their own personal situation.

”No, you don’t.
.
“You know what some Theists believe.
.
“You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
After over 20 years of being a theist and then the next 26 years of being an atheist that interacted with theists, I have yet to meet one theist that didn't make the same kind of arguments and make the same mistakes in logic.

.
If you want to make a claim about mistakes in logic, you’d need to be more specific.
.

You and Ram are making the same claims. They are no different than any other theist's claims.

.
For one thing, different Theists (the ones who make claims) make different claims. For another thing, I don’t make claims, assertions or arguments in the Theism vs Atheism issue, because I don’t regard it as that kind of a subject (…though I’ve expressed my own impressions—not assertions). I merely comment on some funny things about Atheist beliefs.
.
You’re still a Fundamentalist Literalist, Harry. You’ve traded one dogmatic Fundamentalist Literalist, denomination or belief for another.
.

”Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
“As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
“In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
So then you must be an Aggressive Atheist against the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc., because you make claims of disbelief in such things, no? Strange that you seem to be an "Aggressive Atheist" yourself when it comes to all these other things. We both agree that those things do not exist. I am just declaring my disbelief in one more thing than you do

…rather more than one :D
.
Your use of the word “one”, when it’s pointed out to you, should help you to understand your fallacy of your sweeping blanket criticism of all of the various meanings when God is spoken of. …your dogmatic belief that they’re all one.
.
Criticisms about belief should refer to one or more beliefs well-specified by the speaker. Otherwise such claims are meaningless.
.
(As I said, I usually avoid using the word “God” (except when answering people who use it, including Fundamentalists like you), because it has an anthropomorphic connotation.)
.

- your particular god that you claim exists…

.
Wrong. I didn’t make that claim, because, as I said, I don’t regard that matter as an issue for claims, assertions, arguments, debates or proof. In various other threads, I’ve expressed impressions.
.
But I accept your assurance that you were making claims when you were a Theist, just as you now are. …claims about the same doctrinaire, dogmatic Biblical Literalism that you formerly believed in, and now loudly disbelieve in.
.
Thank you for clarifying that the God that you believed in when you were a Theist, and now express disbelief in, is, to you, like the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc.
.
Your beliefs, when you were a Theist, may very well have been like that. I take your word for it that they were.
.

…while rejecting all the others that have been claimed to exist.

.
I don’t “reject” them in the spirit in which you do. They aren’t as important to me as they are to you. But I must admit I just don’t know of a reason to believe in them.
.
And you likewise don’t know of any reason to believe anything that could be called Theism. No one should say that you should believe what you don’t know of a reason to believe.
.
But when you blanket-criticize widely-varied beliefs unspecified by you, then you can expect some people to remind you that you don’t know what you mean.
.

Why the particular preference for the god of the Jews?

.
It’s been said that Aristotle spoke of what you’d call God. Was that, too, the God of the Jews?
.
Theism isn’t specifically about the God of the Jews.
.
I don’t subscribe to a denomination.
.

It is not fundamental to be open-minded to reasonable and logical solutions. You and Ram have yet to provide any.

.
You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution?
.
Michael Ossipoff

You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution? — Michael Ossipoff

Simple. Claims that are made without any evidence (like the claims of the existence of some god (like the god of the Jews)) are placed in the heap with all the other claims with no evidence (like the claims that some other god exists (like the god of the Muslims). They both carry the same amount of evidence - none. Which one should I believe in? Or should it be some other god? Please help me determine which claim with no evidence I should go with. Why would I choose one over some other? Isn't it the existence of evidence that drives us one way or the other?

If you can't answer that, then maybe we should just go with what we do have evidence for - that we exist and the universe exists. Why would we need to inject a god - something for which we have no evidence - as a solution for the the cause of our existence? Why could it not simply be that the universe just exists with us being a part of it? That is what theists claim about their god - that it just exists and has always existed.

Also, we have a problem in defining "god", no? I mean "god" could really be aliens that created this pocket universe with us in it, but does that really qualify them as "gods"? Aren't they just aliens with advanced technology? What is a "god"?