Do you want God to exist? — TheMadFool

Yes, I want God to exist, but with a lot of ambivalence about which God. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-everything-else God? God without one, two, three, or more omni-features? God the Son? A suffering God? A questing God? God coterminous with the universe, or a limited God? A powerless God? God the Holy Ghost? God who exists in all things or a God who doesn't exist in all things? Like that supernova over there?

The God I find most believable is the one who is not all-controlling, everywhere, all the time; the God that is appalled by our appalling actions, but does not -- may not be able to -- intervene; the God who may, perhaps, perceive us, but is not--perhaps can not--be perceived. God as witness, not God as the ultimate actor. I prefer a God without Heaven in which to reside--a perpetually itinerate God; homeless, as it were.

All this is, of course, in reaction to the hyper-active God I was introduced to a long time ago, and took as granted for quite a long time--like most people do. The God who was/is infinitely opinionated, extremely judgmental, has no boundaries, no limitations, and no ambiguity. The God who is involved in absolutely everything all the time everywhere. The Great and Powerful Oz God. Immortal, Invincible, First and and Last Mover, etc.

I wonder - would there be anyone here who doesn't believe in God, yet want one to exist? Or vice versa?

I am that person, I don't believe in God, but if it were in my gift I would have a God.

To your question on whether I would like God to exist or not (and I'm sure that some other agnostic/atheist might agree as well), I would have to say that it would be dependent on whether his/her/it's existence would be of any use to us.

I know that WE are supposed to serve him or some 'higher' calling but since we have been left in a deterministic/Machiavellian world where sometimes might seems to makes right and living beings often have to consume each other to survive, I hope that this 'God' would understand our questioning on whether his existence would be of any use.

Don't get me wrong in that if he is Mr. Super nice guy and is willing and able to shower us all with kittens and puppies and such (as some people say he is) then of course it is unlikely that his existence to be a problem. However we are also talking about a being that is supposedly willing to kill people (and possibly destroy entire worlds) at the drop of a hat. And although 'God' is supposedly good, the bible talks about he being good because he is all powerful and the creator of things, but on the other hand the creator/owner of all things can use and abuse his creation and subjects as he pleases. I may be wrong but being ruled by a God that is a tyrant may not be any better than ruled by human tyrants and could possibly be worse.

I think the problem isn't whether there is a 'God' but more if there is even a 'good' anywhere in the entire process of everything. We have a society that demands that we sacrifice the better part of ourselves so that very few of us can live in comfort and possibly sometime in the distant future 'humanity' can afford a better life for the rest of us; along with the opportunity for us to have a better understanding of our world as well. But is there any really anything 'good' beyond that?

The human race doesn't necessarily need 'God' to save us, but we need the proper tools to get us beyond the current limitations we are stuck in and beyond being condemn to spending our brief existence pushing rocks up hills and eggs with our nose. Maybe certain religions are right in that we deserve no better because of our 'sin' but then again maybe religion merely exists as a means for some people to find a way for them to find a a way to accept that their entire existence is merely meant as a way to provide more meat for the machine. And if 'God' can't understand or empathize with this predicament we are in (whether by his will or some other), then he/she it isn't a 'God' at all.

Question for you - if you believe that is the case, why bother saying anything? Whatever you say must be like everything else - meaningless. — Wayfarer

I believe in a God, and am not an atheist. In that scenario, I was trying to point out that, for a theist, discovering that there is actually no God would be confronting - we would be forced to realise that nothing has meaning (if that were the case, which I don't believe it to be). The same would be true for Atheists, although to a lesser extent, because it would mean things that they would realise certain things they have done in their life may be detrimental to them in the afterlife (depending on the God that is revealed to be real).

I personally want there to be a God, one which is benevolent and allows for semi-determinism. By this, I mean that God dictates certain key events which are to happen in my life no matter what (they are determined), however, all other actions, minor events, and my responses to those actions are made by free will. In other words, I exist in a world of semi-free will.

I want there to be a God so that there can be meaning and purpose in my life - so that I can realise that there are things I can serve on Earth greater than society or myself, that I may meet those who I love once again after death, and that there is a grand scheme of things. I know this may be quite naïve, but then again, so are all beliefs about the existence (or non-existence) of God. After all, we don't even know if God exists, let alone what his personality would be like.

I believe in a God, and am not an atheist. In that scenario, I was trying to point out that, for a theist, discovering that there is actually no God would be confronting - we would be forced to realise that nothing has meaning (if that were the case, which I don't believe it to be). — Javants

Fair enough, that's pretty close to what I said also, but it was hard to tell the intention from the way it was written.

--

I have a put in a word for Indian spirituality at this point. Like a lot of other people of my generation - grew up in the 50's and 60's - I got interested in Hindu spirituality when the Beatles discovered Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.



Among other things, this story gave rise to worldwide interest in Eastern religions. The key point about their teaching was that it was about realising God - not believing in God. And they're different things.

The God-realised being - Ramana Maharishi, another Indian sage, died 1960, was the archetype - realises that only God is real, and says that the apparent world of multiplicity and strife is actually māyā, an illusion, with which the mind has become entanged through avidya, ignorance. (Although, this is a rather different 'God' [if there can be different Gods] to the stern patriarchal figure of the Old Testament - the Hindu name is Brahman.)

It would be impossible to summarise or convey the teachings of Ramana Maharishi in forum posts, but there's an introduction here. Ramana was portrayed in W Somerset Maugham's novel The Razor's Edge and his hermitage at Arunachala in South India has since become a global pilgrimage centre on the 'guru trail'.

The 60's also saw the establishment of numerous Buddhist teaching centers in US and the rest of the Western world, partially due to the 'Tibetan diaspora' which had resulted from the Chinese invasion of Tibet.

The key point about all the Eastern teachings is about 'experiential spirituality' - it's no longer just a matter of believing, but of cultivating the capacity for spiritual experience through meditation.

First tell me exactly what you mean by "God". For example, the God of the Torah, of the Gospels, of the mystics, Spinoza's God? Or something else?

Then tell me exactly what you mean by "exist".

Ok, what about if you found out that there was no God and no afterlife and no nothing else. Do you believe such a situation would be as comforting as this other situation you are describing?

There has to be enlightenment, in order for me to unenlightened, and there has to be God, in order for you lot to be mere mortals.

You are mere mortals, right?

I met God once, and I couldn't cope. So for the moment I prefer to manage without.

Your question reminds me of the Ignmar Berman flick Winter Light. The main character seems to fit the bill -- though granted, this is fiction.

To add onto further remarks relating to the topic at hand:

The desire for some type of god concept requires that we put some value into it. In order for us to desire the good, the good has to be desirable. I was reading Bertrand Russell a few days ago and, while discussing relationships and love, described the following scenario:

You are on a boat near the coast during a sunny day. You appreciate the beauty of the coast and enjoy the pleasure you derive out of the view. As such, you desire the coast. This is one part of love. However, if the boat hits the rock in rough waters and you find yourself in the ocean, your desire for the coast becomes something different. The coast now becomes an object of desire of an entirely different nature: safety. The previous desire and appreciation for the coast is now entirely gone, now only concerned with what the coast can offer us: relief from fear and the knowledge of safety.

When we desire certain things, like a friend or a partner, we can desire both of these aspects (practically all relationships have them), but the one built primarily on safety seems problematic. Imagine that I have no friends and I desire a friend. The question to ask is: when I am looking for a friend, am I searching for someone to "protect" (validate) me or am I finding someone whose personality and company I enjoy? In other words, do I actually want a friend, a unique individual whom I relate to, or do I want someone to entertain me, comfort me whenever I feel down, and effectively serve as an echo chamber for my thoughts and ideas?

I turn this notion to God. Do I want God to exist? I do not know. On one hand, I want certain things that a god concept traditionally offers (of course, logically speaking, most of these things do not automatically follow from the philosophical conception of the classical theistic god, but that is beside the point). So, in a sense, I want God to exist. But do I really want God to exist, or I am I just projecting a being that serves my desires? Immortality? Inner peace? Purpose on a cosmic scale? Alleviation of guilt? The notion that everything will turn out alright in the end, no matter how bad it gets? A permanent and always present being who is always there so I am never alone? I get all of this and more from theism. This is nice, but perhaps too nice- nice in the way it would be nice if everyone loved me, entertained me, knew how great I was, and had their lives revolve around my own. It is the desire to be coddled. While there is nothing inherently wrong with this desire and being coddled from time to time is probably important to us, being coddled constantly seems off to me.

Would this be a valid way at looking at your statement? — Rich

My argument, if at all it is one, is that the rational thing to do is be agnostic about God. The obvious existence of theism and atheism goes to show that the arguments from both sides are not convincing enough. Yet people affirm/deny God with a certainty that isn't justified. What could cause this? I have a hunch that it has something to do with wishful thinking. That's why I made the poll to see, divesting the logical aspects of the issue, how people feel about God; what are their hopes or fears.

"Do you want God or Laws of Nature to exist? Would that be your question? — Rich

For the present moment all I want to know is your desire vis-a-vis god's existence. This god is the creator of the universe and all that it contains - it is the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient god of religion.

My argument, if at all it is one, is that the rational thing to do is be agnostic about God. The obvious existence of theism and atheism goes to show that the arguments from both sides are not convincing enough. Yet people affirm/deny God with a certainty that isn't justified. — TheMadFool

Would you say the same of those who appeal to the Laws of Nature.

Agnosticism, as far as I can tell, is equivalent to doubt. Should there be equivalent doubt about the Laws of Nature? Are those who are convinced that they exist/do not exist acting irrationally?

I agree. There's an exchange - belief bartered for security, comfort, relief from meaninglessness.

That is my point. Some of us want God to exist. The reasons may differ from individual to individual. Isn't this the real picture of theism? Atheism too can be understood this way e.g. a gay person would dislike being divinely condemned and so s/he becomes an atheist.

Some of us want God to exist.....Isn't this the real picture of theism? — TheMadFool

Perhaps that is how you would like it to be. X-)

It's about loss, possibility and how that interacts with our own self-image.

Arguments about the fear of death, for example, don't get to the heart of the question. Many atheists are afraid of death too. No doubt many atheists would love to have an afterlife, even if they believe no such event will occur.

The difference is the atheist can accept a world where they might lose. Life doesn't become unbearable if it's possible (even likely) if they encounter loss.

For the theist, the opposite is true. To them loss is incomprehensible, to a point where they cannot function unless it's very possibly is eliminated. For life to be meaningful and worthwhile, they cannot loss (e.g. there must be an afterlife) and the world must be just (e.g. God enacts a final judgment, so good people get rewarded and bad people don't get away with it), so they form beliefs and actions which take away the possibility of such loss-- hence the must believe, for it will mean being saved from loss and meaninglessness.

I guess the salient question is not so much about God, but would be better framed as 'would you prefer the world was human-shaped through and through'? If the world is not human-shaped through and through would that make it seem meaningless to you?

Then we can ask of other religions: is the world human shaped through and through for them?

Perhaps humans are God shaped, so a religious person is realising this as Wayfarer suggests.

Also if God exists there is a purpose and goal towards which people are moving(as opposed to Nietzsche's vision of the death of God). If God doesn't exist that same purpose and goal is going to be constructive anyway and will result in a better life for people (and the biosphere) in the future. Although people will cease to exist upon death (perhaps), they will have had a constructive enjoyable experience before they die.

Yes, I want God to exist, but with a lot of ambivalence about which God. — Bitter Crank

So you do wish for that other something - there's a hope for a better(?) world. Perhaps this fuels the desire to wish God into existence even if it means in your very personal terms. Do you think that all theists undergo your kind of reasoning? There's that other something that makes them believe in God?

I don't think that question has much to do with it. The world is human shaped (humans are part of it) and not human shaped (other parts of it are not human). Moreover, we don't get one without the others-- I am never the whole world.

To merely be human shaped would take away everything around me that defines life, whether we are talking my current life or a future afterlife-- our lives and florush are defined by what is NOT us as much as it is by us.

The whole question of being human shaped or not and "the problem of meaning" are incohrent, red herrings introduced by ignorance of oneself and the world.

It's what happens when people try to reduce life to the infinte or eternity, to deny possibilities of the world and reduce reality or life to a single image of desire (e.g. eternal life, justice, purpose, etc. )

Regardless of religion, mystic tradition, politics or ideology, this is true. The "saviour" claim of any of them is just a comforting myth (in the case of loss) or hierarchal bullshit (to cause people to take up one idea rather than another).

Agnosticism, as far as I can tell, is equivalent to doubt. Should there be equivalent doubt about the Laws of Nature? Are those who are convinced that they exist/do not exist acting irrationally? — Rich

The laws of nature are significantly different from the OOO god of religion. The former have been fomalized mathematically and are used to make correct predictions on a daily basis - thereby vindicating themselves. Even then scientists continue to remain watchful for that one instance that may overturn a law of nature.

Clearly the OOO god hasn't yet reached that level of veracity/falsity and so the wiser it is to doubt any positive/negative claims about the OOO God.

Yes there it is. Some of the reasons that tip the balance in favor of either theism or atheism, depending on what can be loosely translated as hope, fear, attitude, etc.

it would be dependent on whether his/her/it's existence would be of any use to us. — dclements

Yes and people differ in opinion on that. The end result? Theism for those who think god is useful and atheism for those who think otherwise.

Yes and people differ in opinion on that. The end result? Theism for those who think god is useful and atheism for those who think otherwise.

This is over simplistic. I think a God is useful, but I don't believe in God. Although perhaps I think God is useful as opposed to the alternative, no God. For I don't know what a world with no God looks like.

do your ears not hear what your mouth has spoken? You say you don't believe in God but then straight away add that you can't imagine what a world without God looks like. (Hint - think communist Russia.)

That doesn't wash because atheists have plenty of hopes and fears too.Yet, they are not compelled to be theists. The possiblity of death and fear of loss doesn't tip the scales to theism for them.

Insofar as theism is a manifestation of hope or fear, it's more specific than the presence of such a emotion or expectation. It a sort of negatively termed approach to hope-- that there is no hope in the absence of God.

To say theism is "useful" is more the argument of an atheist-- where theistic belief is registered as a balm for the world (e.g. giving hope to those who can't find it without God, building cultures, giving a moral framework to a society, etc. ).

For the theist, their belief is more than useful. It's an insight, a form of knowledge, understanding and experience, to how existence works and why.

That doesn't wash because atheists have plenty of hopes and fears too.Yet, they are not compelled to be theists. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes I understand. What is most important here is the unverified nature of the god issue - we don't know if god exists or not. So, rationally, we should all be agnostic - uncommitted on the matter.

However, we have theists and atheists. They've made a decision on the god issue. What makes them take the leap from doubt (the rational position) to certainty (theism/atheism)? Just as say, fear makes a theist, hate or something else makes an atheist.

I am not claiming the world is human-shaped. I am asking whether people want the world to be human-shaped . The world is human shaped under the Judaeo-Christian conception. The world was created for humanity and when humanity fell the world fell too, according to this vision.

Your answer that the world is both human-shaped and not human-shaped is irrelevant, because the question is whether those who embrace traditional theism are doing so because they want the world to be human-shaped through and through. It would avoid a lot of wasted time and effort if you read thoroughly before responding. :-}