For me, the question "Is there a God?" is way too premature

[Taverner]

It's like walking into a murder mystery five minutes late, and asking who did it. "Is there a God" requires many other questions to be answered, and not just answered but answered in a way that supports the existence of a supreme being.

Before this question can even begin to be entertained, one must ask first "What is a God," and then based on this definition ask "Could a god, by this definition, exist?" If the answer is yes, the next question would have to be "Can we observe god?" Note, one does not have to be able to observe it for it to exist, but being able to observe it makes things a lot easier.

Then we would want to know how to observe god - and from there, we might ask is there a god - or is this some other naturalistic phenomena.

[duhneece]

1. I like that "What is a God"

How do you see God? How do you define God? How do you experience God? Some have told me that my definition of God, my way of defining God is not, cannot be considered God, so I think you make good points.

[Kalidurga]

3. Very good questions

Most people would say God is the creator. But, then they leave out the possibility that a God could be created. I don't mean an imaginary God but one through evolution/technology. If we were to travel back in time with our technology there are many cultures that would think that we were at the very least some sort of Demi-God or the Devil in any case they would believe we had great powers.

Then there is the possibility that a God once was but is no more as unlikely as that is, I suppose it is a possibility.

What is inconceivable to me would be devolving, that we came from something more evolved than we are. I fail to see the motivation for an all powerful being to create humans and way before that one celled organisms, I don't see the entertainment value, I guess.

[ladjf]

2. Why waste time guessing? nt

[Taverner]

4. I've gone down this road and have concluded there is no God

But everyone has their own road to travel

[rug]

5. Premature speculation is never satisfying.

[dmallind]

6. Yep ineffability is a tough obstacle, but need not cause paralysis

All but the most simple-minded believers, and there are literally only one or two of those posting here and that rarely, will readily accept that the nature/definition of their god is beyond human understanding. Anything we could fully understand would be far too limited to warrant the lower g label, let alone the hypothetical all-powerful eternal big G creator definition.

But just because we cannot fully define or understand a god does not mean we cannot discuss or even determine the truth value of those claims made for it that we do understand. There are some pretty simple and useful proxies we can start with. For example here's how I would define a god:

A conscious entity that can interact with immanent phenomena in such a way as to contradict/suspend accepted physical and natural laws by an act of will.

Trust me I know there are many many yeah buts - what kind of entity? Interact how? What about physical laws beyond our acceptance? That's the ineffable bit. And yes it leaves plenty of room for some putative massively advanced Q-type alien to set themselves up as a god. My answer is "to us they would be a god". If something shows up that can under controlled conditions, repeatedly stop or reverse time we perceive it, create or convert matter telepathically, and so on, I'm willing to take its word for it that it's a god. Might it just be a billion years ahead of us in a few more dimensions? Sure - but who cares at that point - I would be able to see no difference between it and a god, and we are left with semantics. Just like 0.999 recurring is really 1, such an alien would be a god.

So at this point we can add other data. If such an entity existed would we or could we know? Not unless it wanted us to. If it existed and loved us unconditionally could we know? Absolutely, because we would expect those powers to prevent tsunamis and famine and cancer and tooth decay. If I could prevent those things I would, and I don't even claim to love all humsnity. I just don't hate it. By positing a viable proxy definition of a god we can test claims about gods by seeing if those claims about such an entity jive with observed data.

As such it's easy to say no triple-omni gods exist, and easy to say no claimed gods exist that make their followers more wise or charitable or benign than other humans (because there is no unanimity of god claims among those who are wise, charitable or benign). Same for a god that wanted to elevate one country or people above all others. Such gods do not fit known data. But it's impossible to say no disinterested or capricious or absent/ignorant gods exist, because there is no way for us to see how such a god is impossible given known data.

[Deep13]

7. What about the world or the universe makes us think there is one?

Or better yet, what about the human mind and perception makes us predisposed to the idea?

[Taverner]

10. I think the human brain has evolved around the idea of a god

Or just the idea of an explanation for everything, going back to animism and thinking that every rock, tree and animal had invisible spirits behind it to the idea of all powerful gods. As we evolved as a culture, our gods evolved. Think Zeus v Modern Yahweh.

[Odin2005]

8. Good post. IMO the notion of "God" is incoherent and not useful.

It is a mash-up of unrelated concepts. the "God" of the philosophers and mystics is a very different entity than the sky daddy worshiped by the average religious person. they just came under the same label because of cultural norms and fear of being branded a heretic.

[Taverner]

9. Exactly!