To Banjo. I'm glad you recognize that I can call God, ,God." Instead of hypothetical or anything else. But I get the impression you'd rather I go with the other term. What point would that be for me, when I know that He isn't a hypothetical?

Either way, you said earlier:

"As we all know, many people believe in many different Gods and all are just as convinced as you are that their God(s) exist(s) in reality, that it/they is/are the only true God(s) in “real life” (to employ your expression).

Until such time as the existence of such (a) God(s) has been indisputably established, it remains a simple hypothesis."

I've wondered this several times in my life as how God can be so obvious as part of the world to me and to others they have no concept of Him being there. As of now my current hypothesis (the best that I have) isn't about God but about people. That they don't seek Him to find Him, or that they do and they find Him. The exception to this hypothesis is an experience of a believer who was an atheist. The person told his experience that even though He wasn't looking for God, and often mocked those who believed in God, or in any religion, even though this was the situation God took a moment to set him straight.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Here is why it's hard for me to consider the position that God doesn't exist. Because I've had Him actively do things in my life. Respond as well as answer prayers for one thing, and help me understand when first reading the bible as part of looking into what religions could be from Him. I'm not a special case of a person, that shows some special quality that the rest of the world lacks. If anything I am the lack of special qualities to be proud of. Therefore if I can do it so can anyone else. If I can find God, as a kid, as a teen, and as an adult, different points in life to show that God is still there, and hasn't abandoned me, then so can you and so can any other person who seeks Him.

He's not a hypothesis if He's real. Nor is He a hypothesis if people don't even attempt to find out if He's really there. (Untested philosophy? Bias? Honestly I don't know the correct term in those cases). If a person finds God, then the next step would have to be to find out what is from Him and what isn't. Not all religions come from Him, but whether He exists or not should never even be the question. At least in my opinion. If I can find God so can you. No one should have an excuse.

//Here is why it's hard for me to consider the position that God doesn't exist.//

But you seem to find it remarkably easy to consider the position that, say, the Tao doesn't exist - even though committed Taoists will attest to it being an active presence in their lives. I have to wonder if you so readily dismiss their experiences because you don't believe those experiences to be genuine experiences of the Tao, but rather some sort of falsehood, self-deception or hallucination; or whether you immediately dismiss them out of hand because your 10 Commandments tell you to.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … I do not know of anyone, religious or otherwise, who ever claimed that an hypotheses created this world or the like »
I do, Yuyutsu, including yourself – but I respect your belief that God is not just a hypothesis but an “established” fact (even if only in your mind).

You also wrote :

« Existence is for things … »

I don’t know where you got that idea, Yuyutsu. You did not indicate your source. The OED defines existence as « the fact or state of living or having objective reality ». It is not limited to things.

It does not apply to any God or Gods because the concept “God” is not instantiated. The objective reality of a God or Gods has never been indisputably established. Perhaps it will be sometime in the future. But, in the meantime, it is simply a concept, a proposition or a hypothesis – which, for various personal and/or socio-cultural reasons, some people are more disposed to accept than others.

That said, Yuyutsu, I am aware that the notion of existence poses a problem for philosophers in terms of language, metaphysics, and logic. So, as there is no general consensus on the matter among the philosophers, the OED stands as the only conventional authority in the English language on the sense, meaning, interpretation and application of the word.

.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

I have just noticed your long post on page 14 of this thread but, unfortunately, do not have time to respond to it now. You might like to read the response I just posted to Yuyutsu which, I think, partly covers some of the points you raise. I’ll try to get back to you again tomorrow.

The following is a response to your post on the bottom of page 13 of this thread :

Thank you for trying to clarify your position a little further.

I understand, as you do, that the 1st law of thermodynamics has not been disproven by the successful creation of matter from nothing (a quantum vacuum) by the team of 20 American physicists in 1997, as I related in a previous post.

However, I find your extrapolation of the principle of the 1st law of thermodynamics throughout eternity – without beginning or end – somewhat hazardous, to say the least. That would require a vision, knowledge and comprehension of past and future cosmological phenomena far in excess of our present-day capabilities. We have only just begun to scratch the surface of how matter is created. We still have a long way to go in understanding how and when universe was formed and developed.

I, personally, am not inclined to cede to the temptation of the simple “God-of-the-gaps” explanation that so many of our forefathers have satisfied themselves with all too often in the past – sometimes with dramatic consequences. I prefer to place my faith in the capacity of mankind to continue to make progress in our understanding of the universe through scientific effort.

Stephen Hawking, who is well known for his work in this field, has given a series of lectures, two of which are pertinent to our discussions. He evokes a few avenues of reflection worth exploring which I find interesting.

I submit them here for your consideration :

1. « The Beginning of Time (1996) »
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

2. « The Origin of the Universe (2005) »
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

.

For an hypothesised god a beginning is sufficient but not necessary.
Hypothetical Creation by its definition is not made by a created entity. A car-maker does not need horse-shoes on his hooves . Hypothetically the Creator made time , field and pre-existence. Hawking said time reverses , then back-tracked and said it doesn't.
This is creative and god-like , he lived in a black-hole and had time to spare. Logically the hypothetical god could also start at the beginning then cancel the start and re-start earlier . Buddha was onto something.