Is God alife?

[Oliver]

I had a thread in here that had a sarcastic tone to it and pretty
fast turned into a fun-thread - so it was moved to "Humor". It was
called: "God is dead". But I'm serious about that topic, so let me
ask:

Despite all the fancy books and religions, is there any evidence
whatsoever that if at some point in time there was a God, that
he's still alive? [and despite the "I feel that he's alive"-blabbering].

[jimtron]

No evidence that god is still alive or was ever alive.

[Oliver]

No evidence that god is still alive or was ever alive.


Well, that's what I suspected about the trillions of God's that sprang
out peoples imagination since humankind learned how to "conversate".
But a true believer may be able to surprise us with something that
would suggest, that there are signs of some God being alive despite
the dead words in those holy scriptures.

[Radrook]

That's because you tag all evidence as non-evidence.

[Tumblehome]

I say God doesn't exist. Do you take that as evidence that there is no God?

[Piscivore]

Which god?

[uruk]

That's because you tag all evidence as non-evidence.

That depends on the quality of the evidence. Take for instance:
I say God doesn't exist. Do you take that as evidence that there is no God?
That is definitly not evidence for the non-existance of god. it is simply an unsupported statement, Anecdotal or hearsay at best.

The Bible is essentially a collection of anecdotes and hearsay. For it to be taken as evidence,there has to be outside corroberation to support the statements in the Bible.

[jimtron]

But a true believer may be able to surprise us with something that
would suggest, that there are signs of some God being alive despite
the dead words in those holy scriptures.

I'm ready and willing to be surprised. But from past experience, when a "true believer" talks about "signs of some God" it's nothing like empirical evidence.

[Doctor Evil]

Which god?

Me! And no, I do not actually posses evidence that I am alive.

[calebprime]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQEm_hI9_cU

Dr Evil: what if God were one of us? Is God alife?

what if god smoked cannabis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PybtBKSAtLM

[Doctor Evil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQEm_hI9_cU

Dr Evil: what if God were one of us? Is God alife?

what if god smoked cannabis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PybtBKSAtLM

Ooooh, You Tube evidence. Clearly the best kind of evidence in existence.

[firestorm]

People sure throw that 'God' word around. No one can define it/him/her let alone prove it/him/her.

[triadboy]

I say God doesn't exist. Do you take that as evidence that there is no God?

Well, if you say it...it's probably true. So....yes.

[Pardalis]

I think the question is kind of interesting, when you think about it.

I'm not sure Ollie intended it that way, but let's say god exists: would he be technically "alive"?

[Blackadder]

haha.. I never thought about that.

For starters he would be made out of carbon :)

(All life on earth is carbon-based)

[Radrook]

That depends on the quality of the evidence. Take for instance:

That is definitly not evidence for the non-existance of god. it is simply an unsupported statement, Anecdotal or hearsay at best.
The Bible is essentially a collection of anecdotes and hearsay. For it to be taken as evidence,there has to be outside corroberation to support the statements in the Bible.

First, your ignorance of biblical content is showing. But that's neither here nor there.

Second, there's plenty of outside corroboration. But you cunningly choose to classify it as inadmissable.

Also, if indeed the Bible reasoning is so weak as to be totally unconvincing, then why is it that many of the greatest scientific minds have considered the statements logical and preferable to atheistic views?

Even today there are scientists who accept ID as a viable explanation for our existence. If it's so far-fetched then one would expect ALL scientifically- trained minds and all peopletrrained in logical thinking to reject the idea without giving it the slightest consideration. But as it stands, that is not the case. Care to explain?

[Beerina]

People sure throw that 'God' word around. No one can define it/him/her let alone prove it/him/her.


Do you have a definition significantly different from "a being that's infinitely powerful and has the ability to hide from us infinitely well and the curious desire to do so"?

...because that explanation proffered by the religious is mathematically identical with "there isn't any god and hasn't ever been". Guess which one's more likely?

[slingblade]

First, your ignorance of biblical content is showing. But that's neither here nor there.

If you think it's neither here nor there, why do you declare the ignorance exists? Your declaration lends it importance, so why do you then negate your own declaration? Odd behavior...

Second, there's plenty of outside corroboration.

Show us some. We'd like to test it.

But you cunningly choose to classify it as inadmissable.

Admit some, then. We'd like to test it.

Also, if indeed the Bible reasoning is so weak as to be totally unconvincing, then why is it that many of the greatest scientific minds have considered the statements logical and preferable to atheistic views?

1. Name them, and then

2. Prove that a person's occupation is proof that his or her beliefs are fact.

Even today there are scientists who accept ID as a viable explanation for our existence.

They could be wrong. Education in science does not guarantee perfection of thought or opinion.

If it's so far-fetched then one would expect ALL scientifically- trained minds and all people trained in logical thinking to reject the idea without giving it the slightest consideration. But as it stands, that is not the case. Care to explain?

I could explain the logical fallacies you've used here that render your argument unsound and invalid. Would you take note of this, learn from it, and refrain from using fallacies in future, or would I be wasting my time?

I will content myself with the following explanation: what you said isn't sound or valid, and so can't be "explained," only refuted. Care to have me do so?

[NobbyNobbs]

According to Wikipedia, that end-all-and-be-all of sources,

Life is a state that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism and reproduction. Some living things can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally. A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy.[1][2] In more detail, according to physicists such as John Bernal, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and John Avery, life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life).[3][4] A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere on Earth. Properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information. They undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.

An entity with the above properties is considered to be a living organism, that is an organism that is alive hence can be called a life form. However, not every definition of life considers all of these properties to be essential. For example, the capacity for descent with modification is often taken as the only essential property of life.


As far as I have read, all traditional views of God do not portray him as having a metabolism. And although man was created in his image, I wouldn't view that as reproduction any more than Robby the Robot is an offspring of a human. Does God feed on negative entropy? Dunno.

The last sentence is probably the most relevant. Did God descend with modification? I suppose it depends if you believe in Jesus. Then again, he ascended afterwards, so that may cancel it out.

All in all, if there is/was a God, I'm not so sure he was alive in the first place.

[Silentknight]

Even today there are scientists who accept ID as a viable explanation for our existence. If it's so far-fetched then one would expect ALL scientifically- trained minds and all peopletrrained in logical thinking to reject the idea without giving it the slightest consideration. But as it stands, that is not the case. Care to explain?

Yes, scientists like Dr. Michael Behe, one of the leading proponents of ID and the irreducible complexity argument. The reason I brought him up though is not to rehash the obvious problems with his views, but because he actually hurts your case. Behe accepts common descent and admits that some evolution does occur to a small degree. Furthermore, he has made it clear that he does not equate the designer with any specific God of any one religion, which is a huge rift with both his fellows at the Discovery Institute and many of the ID proponents on this forum as of late. Another major difference is that, unlike some people, he has the intellectual honesty to admit that there is no proposed mechanism for design or a means of experimentally testing it.

One of the things I learned from watching his presentation when my school had him as a guest speaker is that sometimes a debate between ID and evolutionary science can be constructive and educational for both sides. Sadly, an argument that consists of asserting, "Some scientists believe in ID, therefore the Bible is right!" is not one of these times.

As far as I have read, all traditional views of God do not portray him as having a metabolism. And although man was created in his image, I wouldn't view that as reproduction any more than Robby the Robot is an offspring of a human. Does God feed on negative entropy? Dunno.
Well, there's ample Biblical evidence to suggest that God EATS people. :D

[fromdownunder]

As far as I have read, all traditional views of God do not portray him as having a metabolism.

When all else fails, quote the source:

Genesis 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings in the altar. 21: And the Lord smelt a soothing aroma.

(New KGV)

OK, it's not quite metabolism, but if a reaction to a nice smelling roast is not a pretty normal reaction to a desire to eat (and therefore assimilate that food), then what was God doing in wanting to sniff Noah's offering? Is there a reason for God having this particular biological sense?

Norm

[NobbyNobbs]

When all else fails, quote the source:

Genesis 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings in the altar. 21: And the Lord smelt a soothing aroma.

(New KGV)

OK, it's not quite metabolism, but if a reaction to a nice smelling roast is not a pretty normal reaction to a desire to eat (and therefore assimilate that food), then what was God doing in wanting to sniff Noah's offering? Is there a reason for God having this particular biological sense?

Norm


It doesn't say "And the Lord's mouth did water, and his stomach did grumble, and all the earth shook when it felt his hunger."

He just smelled it. So God has an olfactory sense, that's all. No metabolism yet. Keep looking though, I wouldn't be surprised if there's something in there somewhere.

[uruk]

First, your ignorance of biblical content is showing. But that's neither here nor there. Well that was pointless.

Second, there's plenty of outside corroboration. But you cunningly choose to classify it as inadmissable. Really? Care to share? And some guy quoting from the Bible doesn't count.

Also, if indeed the Bible reasoning is so weak as to be totally unconvincing, then why is it that many of the greatest scientific minds have considered the statements logical and preferable to atheistic views? A believer is going to accept at face value whatever it is that supports his belief wether it is logical or not. If you read thier arguments you will find that a great deal of assumptions have to swallowed. And you can in no way use the bible as any form of scientific reference.

And as Carl Sagan once said "being really smart is no guarantee from being totaly wrong. Just because you are smart does not mean you are right all the time.

Even today there are scientists who accept ID as a viable explanation for our existence. If it's so far-fetched then one would expect ALL scientifically- trained minds and all peopletrrained in logical thinking to reject the idea without giving it the slightest consideration. But as it stands, that is not the case. Care to explain?
See above. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean that are immune from sillyness. And as for scientists who accept ID, look up Behe and the Dover trial. Behe was shown that his theories concerning ID were poorly researched and badly formulated. That what you get for tring to reconcile science and religeon.

[Darth Rotor]

I had a thread in here that had a sarcastic tone to it and pretty
fast turned into a fun-thread - so it was moved to "Humor". It was
called: "God is dead". But I'm serious about that topic, so let me
ask:

Despite all the fancy books and religions, is there any evidence
whatsoever that if at some point in time there was a God, that
he's still alive? [and despite the "I feel that he's alive"-blabbering].
Alife?

Did you mean alive? :confused:

Is God's existence the same as human existence?

Probably not, being immortal. See the idea that being immortal, as in not being able to die, a state that renders the concept of death irrelevant, and thus life as you and I experience it likewise irrelevant to the being under discussion.

Is a rock alive?

Is a black hole alive?

All the above based on the standard model of God as Creator, and so on and so forth.

As to other gods being alive or dead, I do hear that Odin is on vacation, and that Loki is near Uranus. He's Thor about something.

There is another school of thought on all this: as soon as nobody worships a god, the god dies, or is dead, or becomes dead. I think this is related to the Tinkerbell axiom of supernatural beings, but don't recall at the moment.

[MattusMaximus]

A colleague of mine and I were quipping about philosophy the other day (he's actually got some excerpts from Chris Hitchens he's using in class), and he pointed to Hitchens' book and stated "God is dead!" in a playfully mocking tone.

I then looked at him and stated, with a bit of a wry smile on my face, "How can something be dead which never existed in the first place?"

That got a chuckle from a few other people in the room -- Gotcha! ;)

[MattusMaximus]

what if god smoked cannabis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PybtBKSAtLM


Isn't that where the platypus came from? ;)

[PBTree]

First, your ignorance of biblical content is showing. But that's neither here nor there.

Also, if indeed the Bible reasoning is so weak as to be totally unconvincing, then why is it that many of the greatest scientific minds have considered the statements logical and preferable to atheistic views?


Now theres an example that should be placed in "Webster's Dictionary" under the word 'oxymoron'.

;)

[Kopji]

Even today there are scientists who accept ID as a viable explanation for our existence. If it's so far-fetched then one would expect ALL scientifically- trained minds and all peopletrrained in logical thinking to reject the idea without giving it the slightest consideration. But as it stands, that is not the case. Care to explain?


By comparison, Islam is not so far fetched for Christians to accept? :)

ID is not far fetched, but an indicator that Some scientists cease being curious about some subjects and settle on an answer they feel is adequate. A foundational idea of scientific falsification is that it assumes that we are always trying to increase our knowledge. ID equates to giving up on being curious.


If Olivier is really serious, a more precise question would be to ask if God ever influenced or is influencing history in some way. (This would be like being 'alive', even if God were not a carbon or silicon based unit). Acceptable evidence then, would be of the nature of showing how our universe would be different plus or minus the presence of a deity.

[arthwollipot]

Just want to launch a pre-emptive strike here.

The Church has had a great influence on human history. This does not mean that God has.

Okay? Right, cool. Back to you.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Despite all the fancy books and religions, is there any evidence whatsoever that if at some point in time there was a God, that
he's still alive?No. If there is a God, he is dead or non-responsive. If there is an alive God, but he is non-responsive, the evidence (and influence) would be that same as if he were dead or non-existent.

God either does not exist, is dead, or does not influence anything. In any case, God does not influence anything.

Things always happen in accordance with specific rules. Science identifies those rules. This allows us to make airplanes, and light bulbs, and computers, and watches, and refrigerators, and pace makers, and cheeseburgers, and cell phones, and atomic bombs, and automobiles, and satellites, and televisions, and clothes, and medicine, and air conditioners, and shag carpeting, with such consistency.

If a real alive influential God was mucking about changing the rules at his whim, none of these things would work and gravity, time, chemistry and everything would just be random. But when all these things work, it shows over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again for hundreds of years that things happen according to certain rules and not according to the whims of some other God or influence.

If there is a God and he is alive, he does things in a very specific way that can only be defined by the scientific method.

So, the scientific method works whether there is no God, a dead God, a non-responsive God, or an alive responsive but “stuck in his ways” God. The scientific method would even work if there is an influential God. God would simply become another identified force—like gravity. If identified, then science could work on specifying how this “God force” works.

Absent any identified force, God is not alive or dead, but rather “absent”.

[Oliver]

I think the question is kind of interesting, when you think about it.

I'm not sure Ollie intended it that way, but let's say god exists: would he be technically "alive"?


So you don't allow me to address you in a personal way - but I am "Ollie"? :boggled::D
But yes, the question is about assuming or believing that there is a living
God. He surely would leave some traces from time to time. What or where
are they?

[Pardalis]

But if he's alive, does this mean that he can die? If he can die, then how does he keep from dying? How does he sustain himself?

[Oliver]

But if he's alive, does this mean that he can die? If he can die, then how does he keep from dying? How does he sustain himself?


I dunno. Why don't you start an own thread about your questions, Rascal? :D

[uruk]

But if he's alive, does this mean that he can die? If he can die, then how does he keep from dying? How does he sustain himself?

Sacrifices, Burnt offerings, The souls of a billion people as he sets one group against another in wars and terrorist suicide bombings and natural disasters and desease.

That's why god created us. A smorgasborg of different races and ethnic flavors.
We're the McDonalds of the divine. Over a billion served up to the almighty with shakes and fries to boot.

God doesn't want peace. He'll starve. :P




ETA: No pun intended in reguards to Oliver's avatar

[Pardalis]

Absent any identified force, God is not alive or dead, but rather “absent”.

You mean god is aloof?

I dunno. Why don't you start an own thread about your questions, Rascal? :D

Well sorry to have read too much meaning into your question and to have tried to salvage it.

[Psi Baba]

He surely would leave some traces from time to time. What or where
are they?
So we're looking for god scat, now?

I think Harlan Ellison put it best in his story "The Deathbird." Define God. Give two examples.

[NobbyNobbs]

There is another school of thought on all this: as soon as nobody worships a god, the god dies, or is dead, or becomes dead. I think this is related to the Tinkerbell axiom of supernatural beings, but don't recall at the moment.

I believe that would be the Terry Pratchett Theory of Godhood.

[Popsicle]

I believe that would be the Terry Pratchett Theory of Godhood.

A theory put to good use by Neil Gaiman in American Gods.

Depending on your beliefs, god is dead. Or alive. Or both. Or neither. As has been said before, the existence of a god depends on one who believes it. However, there are three possible beliefs:

1. God is alive
2. God is dead
3. God is neither dead nor alive.
4. There is no god.

As far as the first two beliefs go, I'm not sure if god works by majority rule or not, so there's really no way to determine whether god is alive or dead based on what people believe. God could be either one. So for all intents and purposes, if we're to believe god exists, then god is a cat trapped in a box rigged to a geiger counter with a decaying radioactive isotope. Give it an hour, open the box, check the vitals.

One could also argue that god is everything. So wouldn't god be both dead and alive at the same time? Or perhaps god is neither dead nor alive. A zombie. That would certainly lend credence to the whole "Zombie Jesus" theory, if one were to believe the whole "Father/Son/Holy Ghost" thing.

My personal feeling is there is currently no absolute proof that a god exists beyond the beliefs of living people. There's no cat, no box, and no geiger counter. And no zombies. Yet.

[Brian-M]

People sure throw that 'God' word around. No one can define it/him/her let alone prove it/him/her.

I'd define a god as anything that people pray to for help, favors or guidance. There I defined it! (Does that make me no one?) :)

So if people started praying to a rock, then that rock would be a god.
If people started praying to an imaginary being that lives in the sky, then that imaginary being would be a god, the same as the rock is.

As for proving a god exists, that's easy. Just find someone genuinely praying to something, and you've proven a god exists... even if that god is nothing more than an inanimate lump of rock or an imaginary being. :)

[Brian-M]

Second, there's plenty of outside corroboration. But you cunningly choose to classify it as inadmissable.

Can you give me links to this outside corroboration? Preferably to secular sites.


Also, if indeed the Bible reasoning is so weak as to be totally unconvincing, then why is it that many of the greatest scientific minds have considered the statements logical and preferable to atheistic views?

Even today there are scientists who accept ID as a viable explanation for our existence. If it's so far-fetched then one would expect ALL scientifically- trained minds and all peopletrrained in logical thinking to reject the idea without giving it the slightest consideration. But as it stands, that is not the case. Care to explain?

The explanation is called indoctrination. Many people find it exceedingly difficult to shrug-off the beliefs they were raised with. People who grow up in Hindu families and societies tend to remain Hindu their entire lives. People who grow up in Muslim families and societies tend to remain Muslim their entire lives. People who grow up in Christian families and societies tend to remain Christian their entire lives.

If you're going to give the "smart people believe in God too" argument, then at least provide us with some examples of great thinkers who started off as non-believers and developed belief in a god from a rational, logical standpoint.

If you can't provide credible examples of rational, logical people who base their belief in a god from a position of reason and logic (and not childhood indoctrination), then your argument that belief in a god is rational and logical because rational, logical people believe in a god is completely invalid... and irrational.

[arthwollipot]

A theory put to good use by Neil Gaiman in American Gods.There's also the Dirk Gently theory which is that gods with no worshippers still exist, they just lie around in hospitals getting their linen sheets changed.

[Laughingmonk]

One thing I can't understand is the human tendency to automatically lend credit to something that is old.

Oh, the "insert religious text here" is ancient, so everyone should view it as the word of god and infallible.

I have figured out over the years that if you think in 2000 year old terms, you tend to act in a two thousand year old way.

Even today there are scientists who accept ID as a viable explanation for our existence. If it's so far-fetched then one would expect ALL scientifically- trained minds and all peopletrrained in logical thinking to reject the idea without giving it the slightest consideration. But as it stands, that is not the case. Care to explain?

Simple. They are mistaken, or are lying.

[Oliver]

One thing I can't understand is the human tendency to automatically lend credit to something that is old.


Or something that is new (http://www.scientology.org/). Which brings up the thought that a real
god, if alive, would do something about new "religions".

[SirPhilip]

You mean god is aloof? If he does, someone finally got it right this time..