Yep, trying to finish the debacle I come around with this approach on the matter.

God, independently of any prove, exists as a concept. Just like all of us agree with the concept of time, God is a concept, worked around since the very beginning of humanity.

I'm looking this from a philosophical, social point of view, in order to make it clear that I would like you guys to comment this without mixing religious conceptions, nor faith.

but time as a concept has one definition, what sort of defined concept are you referring to for god?

mmm, I would like to hear a concrete description for time...

God is a concept, but just as time, it has no formal definition, as humanity have proven, it may differ from one historic period to another. For some cultures, it represents the glory of their nations, for others, it's a judge, for others, it's a goal.

Time exists because our brains are only capable of absorbing one instance at a... Time... In other words, time is a relativity between two perceived instances.

Unfortunately, I see no relativity in the existence of god.

Does time exist? I don't know... But we sure are only capable of perceiving one instance at a time, so it seems to exist.

Does god exist? I don't know... But I've never perceived an instance of god, so as of now, I lean in the direction of "no".

time is considered to be a dimension of the universe, the movement from past to the future is how we move through the time dimension, (speculation of the possiblity of going backwards notwithstanding).

It is defined by us using the things relative to us, such as the movement of our sun and the rotation of our planet, and more recently the vibration of atoms, (specifically caesium atoms)

the concept of a non-supernatural god lacks even a proposed formal definition
if thats what you mean by concept, which is why i was enquiring which particular concept you are referring to.

OK, got your point. I am talking of the concept of god from a different approach, such as the social concept of a god, evolving from the times. As such, God has never had a concept, but as a reflect of the ideals of a culture.

Ok, well if you treat a god as the social concept of current culture, then yes god could be said to exist, but doing so would remove all meaning from the word god.
You could just as easily call a written Constitution or the legal system 'god' and it would make as much sense.

Yes, you are right. But you must remember that for most cultures, God was not only a representation of their present, but an idealization, an horizon where to go. For some multitheist cultures, for example, gods were a representation of many human aspects, thus, they had human vices as well (greeks? ) However, a distinguished common characteristic among all representations of God, it's his ( or their ) immortality and their superhuman abilities, a clear evidence that they represent an ideal generalized among all cultures of human supremacy. So, I think for most cultures, God have represented their culture and their ideals for a better society in the future, all this inherited in a single or sometimes in multiple characters

This would merely be a hope/dream of the perfect person, many people like to dream about having superpowers, the next best thing is someone with superpowers working for you

If the concept of god is peoples hopes and dreams for themselves and their society, along with their personal vision of what a superior human being would be like, then it still has no need to be supernatural, everyone has hopes and dreams, but there is still nothing 'godlike' about it.

That's it... because you and me know that, but people in those societies and a lot of people in ours don't realize their God is that, a representation of what they want, impersonated in a single, perfect entity that unites all those desires. Now, it needs to be related to the human, as it's always been our homocentric way of thinking, so the most natural thing to do is creating a supernatural, humanoid being with all those characteristics... The only cultures I remind not doing so were some prehispanic americans who represented their gods in the form of animals, but this could be related to the strong relationship with nature these cultures had

The idea of "supernatural" is funny really...

If something REALLY exists, is it not natural?

At one point gravity, the sun, magnets, the workings of the human body... None of these were within the mental reach of early humans, and indeed they were often thought of as "magic" or "supernatural" manifestations.

But really, "supernatural" is another way of saying "non understood" or "not proven". Because if something exists, it's part of nature.

*Chuckle.* Good point. I suppose the supernatural is the ultimate nature -- the nature that created our nature.

SigmaX

Some we've come to the conclusion that there is no God? Sweet.

Somehow, I feel socialdiscussion.com will be the birthplace of a new religion...

And IMO, I don't confuse mysellf thinking about whether Allah exists or not. The world and universe we live in didn't create itself. Who did? Allah. As simple as that, for me at least.

Extreme Coder.

Who made Allah?

The original argument in this thread is basically equivalent to saying "The word 'God' exists!"

Okay, so what? Where do you go from there?
Nowhere, really.

I believe in God. God is an immortal, benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being, I think it would be very hard to prove the existence of God, St. Anselm put for several proofs of the the existence of God. Ontological argument

I think the argument stated earlier on this thread was, the universe had to be created by something. I think the atheists retort to this is that the universe could be infinite, just as the theist would claim God is infinite, if the universe is infinite then one doesn't need God to explain the existence of universe. However, it seems as though the concept of heat death, and the fact that the universe seems to have had a beginning (big bang) suggests that the universe is not infinite. I also like the idea that I won't cease to exist after my body dies. Psychological crutch? I prefer to think of it as hopeful.

I'd like to know the atheist response to this. I believe in God, I don't think it is contrary to reason to believe this, although I think faith helps a lot, if it isn't necessary.

I don't believe in god because I have no reason TO believe in god.

Before you try to pick apart my atheism, I don't believe in the big bang either. Because there is no conclusive proof.

God and the big bang are in the same category in my head... I can't prove or disprove either, so I don't believe in either. They are both just unprovable theories.

Faith, IMO, is another way of saying "no... Don't look behind the curtain..."

And the bible (if that's what you believe) was written by men... Assembled by more men... And then copied by even MORE men... Much room for error if you ask me.

Hell, if I were satan, and I wanted to get people, why not influence one of those men involved with the production of the bible?

Even if we're sure the universe/multiverse had a beginning (Which we're not), saying "I don't know where time and existence came from" is quite different from saying "I know that God exists." We can barely understand how the world we can observer works, so postulating on why a grand event that our minds can't even fathom happened x billion years ago... hmm...

And as far as the ontological argument... I imagine a space ship orbiting mars with me on board. I imagine that it exists -- since a space ship has to exist to be a space ship. But I'm not in a space ship orbiting mars... that's in the imaginary world.

It's just a linguistic trick when to word it wit God as something that has to exist to be the greatest thing imaginable. 'Course He has to exist to be imagined. He has to exist in the imaginary world.

'sides, what's "greatness" anyway?

SigmaX

I think of Faith as being an inkling that something is behind the curtain, even if you can't necessarily articulate why. The inkling makes you look further, it makes you try to look behind the curtain. It seems as though we agree that you can't disprove the existence of God. I'm not sure if you can prove the existence of God either.

Some things that I don't like about Theists are, those that disagree with some science because it threatens the existence of God. I think the Evolution v. Creationist debates are somewhat silly, I think that the two can coexist quite nicely.

I'm not sure if I have a point, those are just some thoughts. As far as me trying to pick apart your atheism, I think that you aren't actually an Atheist at all, you admitted yourself that you couldn't prove if God existed or not, I call that agnosticism.