Does God exist? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
dan964
what
I will split it over 2-3.Plz don't spam the thread with 50 different posts in wrong order. Can you just write your "sketch" response in one ordered post.
Hope you don't mind them meme
Keeps the convo interesting (just banter)
memes are ok.
Last edited:
dan964
what
I will split my reply by topic... I type my replies in notepad.
===On the topic of science and miracles===
[1.1] Firstly, I view that statement "universal laws of physics always hold true" you have tirelessly made as science laws as a convention not strictly as fact.
(This is adopted due to the problem of induction)
[1.2] Secondly, my position is not "always" but without loss of generality (WLOG), that is definitely not the same thing. Therefore,
I am not however drawing the conclusions of (#1) or (#2)
They may be similar positions, but my convention also is not to assume laws are broken, but to seek a proper understanding of the "outlier" data.
I do not assume the "outlier" data or as we call it a miracle is not necessarily naturalistic, but seek to understand as you would say whether it is consistent with
other data.
[1.3] ** My key presumption for the study is that the existence rather the quantity nor the scale of such data is what is signficant, as it is counter-example to the hypothesis,
from a statistical perspective, the reason I argue that is the pragmatic applications both logically, and to the question of this thread.
[1.4] It is part of your framework. I think "problem of induction" is significant
Several problems with the inductive reasoning, which are 2 variants of the same thing:
(#1) Generalisation from past experience aka. the black swan problem (e.g. dead people haven't ever risen, so therefore dead people can never rise)
(#2) Proposing a sequence of events in the future will always occur as it always has in the past (e.g. laws of physics will hold as they always have been)
Note: this applies to both sides, for instance the ontological arguments themselves can have make the same argument, and even some of the material raised.
There are several ways to resolve this issue:
- Appeal to some authority for the foundational framework (justification) for presuppositions. This works if you can establish the authority.
(adopted by Christians I'll explain in a sec)
- Hume's argument, that induction is still useful, and improvements can be made.
I agree that is what science is, however that leads me to reject the idea of absolute scientific proof from evidence.
This position is very compatible with the notion of scholarship and "peer-reviewed articles".
- Stove's argument uses statistic syllogisms. There is benefits to this approach in particular studies (espercially confidence intervals and probability) but there
are informal fallacies
>> (#3) fallacy of accident (also known as destroying the exception, ignoring possible exceptions: deductively valid but unsound, so deceptive)
>> (#4) converse accident (exception is wrongly excluded, generalisation wrong called as applying to all cases)
For e.g. If one person rose from the dead more people would rise (#2). Such an argument has not been properly argued, it is not necessarily illogical,
but it is a case of "converse accident". Thankfully that argument I have not seen used too often.
- Popper's position, that science is not inductive, knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. It uses existing theories and attempts to falsify them.
I agree with his position to some degree as well as a secular argument for [1.1]
(A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical.
Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn
into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method).
I agree as so to far to say in science you can disprove theorems, but not prove them, this means there is no closed scientific canon.
Interesting Popper also argues the truth content of our theories cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified. His position might be untenable, but I find some agreement with him
but would have to go deeper into all 3 positions. Scientific study is then mainly less about proving things (that is the realm of mathematics/logic)
and more to do with "best explanation".
Implications, implications everywhere
[1.5] Food for thought. Interesting comment, is that the argument "things do not pop into existence out of nothing", is itself an argument used by Christians that is faulty.
[2.1] Addressing the Christian line of logic.
A4 I think is one of the critical starting points (look at Paul's way of addressing Greek philosophers in Acts 17)
Most major world religions I can think of, have this in common.
P1 (premise). Establish God's existence (using whatever means is ok).
From P1, we have
F2 (established/undisputed) We exist (as part of universe)
C3 (corollary - mostly structural fine). God made us (since by definition God made universe)
A4 (assumption). God made us in his likeness/image etc.
F5 (established/undisputed) Humans relate to one another and use speech.
C6 (corollary - tenantive som would argue an assumption) Humans speak, God has spoken.
....Faith then...
K7 (key from C6): God has spoken through Jesus....
C8 (requires A7): Jesus established authority of Scriptures, and also of apostles teachings and then conseq. Paul.
C9 Scriptures testify to inspiration by God.
(For me personally, this how I would explain the rationale behind my faith. There are some jumps, based on assessments of the contents of the Bible).
A7 is just dense though, I have simplified it, but actually the link between A7 and C8 itself, can only be established with A7.
Muslims believe that God has spoken through Jesus, but they reject C8, contrary the Jesus' words.
To address other things said:
====
Theologically speak
general and useful enough yes, so I can say they are universal. But universal does not imply always. I cannot answer your questions honestly sometimes if you haven't well defined particular words you are using.
We do have different positions.
===
Part 2 coming soon.
===On the topic of science and miracles===
I have doing some more reading, as so to articulate my position a bit clearer and the problems I have with yours.
[1.1] Firstly, I view that statement "universal laws of physics always hold true" you have tirelessly made as science laws as a convention not strictly as fact.
(This is adopted due to the problem of induction)
[1.2] Secondly, my position is not "always" but without loss of generality (WLOG), that is definitely not the same thing. Therefore,
I am not however drawing the conclusions of (#1) or (#2)
They may be similar positions, but my convention also is not to assume laws are broken, but to seek a proper understanding of the "outlier" data.
I do not assume the "outlier" data or as we call it a miracle is not necessarily naturalistic, but seek to understand as you would say whether it is consistent with
other data.
[1.3] ** My key presumption for the study is that the existence rather the quantity nor the scale of such data is what is signficant, as it is counter-example to the hypothesis,
from a statistical perspective, the reason I argue that is the pragmatic applications both logically, and to the question of this thread.
[1.4] It is part of your framework. I think "problem of induction" is significant
Several problems with the inductive reasoning, which are 2 variants of the same thing:
(#1) Generalisation from past experience aka. the black swan problem (e.g. dead people haven't ever risen, so therefore dead people can never rise)
(#2) Proposing a sequence of events in the future will always occur as it always has in the past (e.g. laws of physics will hold as they always have been)
Note: this applies to both sides, for instance the ontological arguments themselves can have make the same argument, and even some of the material raised.
There are several ways to resolve this issue:
- Appeal to some authority for the foundational framework (justification) for presuppositions. This works if you can establish the authority.
(adopted by Christians I'll explain in a sec)
- Hume's argument, that induction is still useful, and improvements can be made.
I agree that is what science is, however that leads me to reject the idea of absolute scientific proof from evidence.
This position is very compatible with the notion of scholarship and "peer-reviewed articles".
- Stove's argument uses statistic syllogisms. There is benefits to this approach in particular studies (espercially confidence intervals and probability) but there
are informal fallacies
>> (#3) fallacy of accident (also known as destroying the exception, ignoring possible exceptions: deductively valid but unsound, so deceptive)
>> (#4) converse accident (exception is wrongly excluded, generalisation wrong called as applying to all cases)
For e.g. If one person rose from the dead more people would rise (#2). Such an argument has not been properly argued, it is not necessarily illogical,
but it is a case of "converse accident". Thankfully that argument I have not seen used too often.
- Popper's position, that science is not inductive, knowledge is created by conjecture and criticism. It uses existing theories and attempts to falsify them.
I agree with his position to some degree as well as a secular argument for [1.1]
(A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical.
Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn
into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method).
I agree as so to far to say in science you can disprove theorems, but not prove them, this means there is no closed scientific canon.
Interesting Popper also argues the truth content of our theories cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified. His position might be untenable, but I find some agreement with him
but would have to go deeper into all 3 positions. Scientific study is then mainly less about proving things (that is the realm of mathematics/logic)
and more to do with "best explanation".
Implications, implications everywhere
[1.5] Food for thought. Interesting comment, is that the argument "things do not pop into existence out of nothing", is itself an argument used by Christians that is faulty.
[2.1] Addressing the Christian line of logic.
A4 I think is one of the critical starting points (look at Paul's way of addressing Greek philosophers in Acts 17)
Most major world religions I can think of, have this in common.
P1 (premise). Establish God's existence (using whatever means is ok).
From P1, we have
F2 (established/undisputed) We exist (as part of universe)
C3 (corollary - mostly structural fine). God made us (since by definition God made universe)
A4 (assumption). God made us in his likeness/image etc.
F5 (established/undisputed) Humans relate to one another and use speech.
C6 (corollary - tenantive som would argue an assumption) Humans speak, God has spoken.
....Faith then...
K7 (key from C6): God has spoken through Jesus....
C8 (requires A7): Jesus established authority of Scriptures, and also of apostles teachings and then conseq. Paul.
C9 Scriptures testify to inspiration by God.
(For me personally, this how I would explain the rationale behind my faith. There are some jumps, based on assessments of the contents of the Bible).
A7 is just dense though, I have simplified it, but actually the link between A7 and C8 itself, can only be established with A7.
Muslims believe that God has spoken through Jesus, but they reject C8, contrary the Jesus' words.
To address other things said:
====
My counter-question: does it need to? I have given my position, which is WLOG not always.
Theologically speak
Irrelevant. Whether people are studying has not being on whether it can be proven or not. Also in science we only disprove things.
Doesn't matter whether specific law of all laws, you have not defined universal. Universal can mean "a term or concept of general application', which as argued does not imply always. In that case do I believe those laws are
general and useful enough yes, so I can say they are universal. But universal does not imply always. I cannot answer your questions honestly sometimes if you haven't well defined particular words you are using.
We do have different positions.
Not every scientist holds to naturalism.
===
Part 2 coming soon.
dan964
what
Part 2 everything else
(which like science is also a refinement as is textual criticism). You might need to explain yourself here.
(C) "Hear and give ear; do not be haughty, for the Lord has spoken. . . . And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated . . . because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen." (Jeremiah 13:15–26)
Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
As with Ezekiel 16 (which employs similar language). Language is symbolic to describe Israel's unfaithfulness. Hardly a passage to use to determine ethics. That is a sketch.
Really doesn’t seem like it is out of context here, or anything to do with Israels unfaithfulness.
Occurs in Jeremiah 13 (twice), Nahum 5, Isaiah 47, Ezekiel 16 (indirect): but it is all shocking imagery
e.g. "Your nakedness will be uncovered, Your shame also will be exposed"
It is metaphorical picture language, I do seriously think you missed that one. It is supposed to shock you.
It isn't to be taken as imperative or this is something we should do.
Again let me highlight:
1. Yes there are people who believe.
2. Again such a guy does not exist. And even if he was as good as Bill, he is not justified before God because he rejects Jesus.
The Quran denies Jesus was crucified/died, something which every other source (roman, jewish, christian) all agree on.
Praying to God or any false god does not equal saved, especially the latter.
Also there are lots more differences if Bill is a devout Muslim and Bob is a devout/believing Christian. There beliefs about God, Jesus, salvation
are fundamentally different.
Also religiousity or devoutness doesn't save you. All are by default going to hell, only those who believe in Jesus (Christian) are saved.
It is because only by Jesus can save (and not the Muslim version of Jesus or the Hindu version of Jesus).
Let me ask you
For instance 2 examples:
- Joseph brothers sold him into slavery, God used that to save many people from famine.
- Jesus, Jewish leaders conspired and crucified him, but God used that to bring salvation and eternal life to the nations.
Hebrews 2:8-10 (commentary on Psalm 8), c.f. Acts 2:22-36
- Suffering/persecution of Christians, God uses that to make us more like Jesus (because Jesus suffered) (why do Christians put with the oppression overseas?)
with Jesus, recommend reading Hebrews 2:8-10 (read around it).
in sin.
But remember I said it was a general explanation. Humanity's sin in general is reponsible for suffering overall. This explanation does not unfortunately link specific
suffering to specific sins, we reject karma.
I can trust that he is good, and do what is just.
other than promises that God has made, and things like Ephesians 1:9-10.
[quo]te I would suggest that it would be an impossible suggestion. To turn the question on its head, why doesn't the world have one more child born with that.
Sigh.
I’m hoping that the world has less suffering, and not more. This is why I ask the good god to reduce a birth defect in a newborn, not increase it.
[/quote]
How would you know whether he has or not. One will not be enough for you.
Why would God be obliged to end only the suffering of a few? Hmm? That would not be fair, would it?
You simply don't think sin is that bad that it warrants suffering/judgement. Let me illustrate, if I cut a rose off my garden, it looks pretty but it will wither and die.
that is the case with all of humanity, we have been severed from the source of life, so it is expected that suffering happens.
God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.
We are all in the same position, we all deserve hell, we all deserve much much worse suffering all of us. God doesn't not have to do anything for you
he doesn't have to save anyone. The fact that he does is surprising.
default position. God's answer is to remove a little bit of his goodness as a response. Which includes giving people over to their own desires.
The problem with the illustration used by both of us, it implies a future action. Unfortunately we have already rejected God, we are already condemned. Why doesn't God be fair
and punish us completely right now.
We are reflecting back on the past, and say could God have done it better, my answer, you need to know the future/big picture to be able to make that assessment.
(short answer - no)
When Adam sinned it was too late. Why didn't God prevent Adam sin? (Well it wasn't his plan)
A parent cannot stop their child from making decisions even they are against the word of the parent; and suffer the consequences of disobeying parents.
That is a better illustration.
Now God could, but would that be loving?
God knows all of time/space at once. God is.
Note: translation. Translation does not always capture culture context and the meaning of the world. Meanings of words change over time, as does the translation process
(which like science is also a refinement as is textual criticism). You might need to explain yourself here.
(C) "Hear and give ear; do not be haughty, for the Lord has spoken. . . . And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated . . . because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen." (Jeremiah 13:15–26)
Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
As with Ezekiel 16 (which employs similar language). Language is symbolic to describe Israel's unfaithfulness. Hardly a passage to use to determine ethics. That is a sketch.
Really doesn’t seem like it is out of context here, or anything to do with Israels unfaithfulness.
What translation were you originally using (I suspect ESV). What version is the LB? NASB has "skirts removed" (it is a fairly wooden/literal translation).
Occurs in Jeremiah 13 (twice), Nahum 5, Isaiah 47, Ezekiel 16 (indirect): but it is all shocking imagery
e.g. "Your nakedness will be uncovered, Your shame also will be exposed"
It is metaphorical picture language, I do seriously think you missed that one. It is supposed to shock you.
It isn't to be taken as imperative or this is something we should do.
Recycling content suggests you do not actually read carefully what I have written.
Again let me highlight:
1. Yes there are people who believe.
2. Again such a guy does not exist. And even if he was as good as Bill, he is not justified before God because he rejects Jesus.
The Quran denies Jesus was crucified/died, something which every other source (roman, jewish, christian) all agree on.
Praying to God or any false god does not equal saved, especially the latter.
Also there are lots more differences if Bill is a devout Muslim and Bob is a devout/believing Christian. There beliefs about God, Jesus, salvation
are fundamentally different.
Also religiousity or devoutness doesn't save you. All are by default going to hell, only those who believe in Jesus (Christian) are saved.
It is because only by Jesus can save (and not the Muslim version of Jesus or the Hindu version of Jesus).
We have free choice, but not a free will. Slight difference. Our will is bound to our nature.
Let me ask you
of course. But he works all things for the good of those who love him, whom he predestined to be conformed to Jesus... (Romans 8:28-29)
For instance 2 examples:
- Joseph brothers sold him into slavery, God used that to save many people from famine.
- Jesus, Jewish leaders conspired and crucified him, but God used that to bring salvation and eternal life to the nations.
Hebrews 2:8-10 (commentary on Psalm 8), c.f. Acts 2:22-36
- Suffering/persecution of Christians, God uses that to make us more like Jesus (because Jesus suffered) (why do Christians put with the oppression overseas?)
a bit of misunderstanding there, the two things aren't as closley/directly linked.
with Jesus, recommend reading Hebrews 2:8-10 (read around it).
Sketch answer but sin is not simply something committed, it is more complex than that. Death reigns, and so the baby, yes they may not break a command, they are still
in sin.
But remember I said it was a general explanation. Humanity's sin in general is reponsible for suffering overall. This explanation does not unfortunately link specific
suffering to specific sins, we reject karma.
You are assuming he doesn't. I am not in the place of God, I wouldn't know whether he has or hasn't. I don't have a nice easy answer for that one.
I can trust that he is good, and do what is just.
You already said that. I cannot answer specific analogies/examples wrt suffering. I can only give you the bigger picture and say that we don't have the full picture
other than promises that God has made, and things like Ephesians 1:9-10.
[quo]te I would suggest that it would be an impossible suggestion. To turn the question on its head, why doesn't the world have one more child born with that.
Sigh.
I’m hoping that the world has less suffering, and not more. This is why I ask the good god to reduce a birth defect in a newborn, not increase it.
[/quote]
How would you know whether he has or not. One will not be enough for you.
Basically you are saying, God end all suffering, to just take it to the logical ends. Again I don't have answers for specific cases.
Why would God be obliged to end only the suffering of a few? Hmm? That would not be fair, would it?
Rehashed.
Hebrews 9:27 - man is destined to die once and face judgement. Suffering is a precursor to death. All part of judgement for sin.
You simply don't think sin is that bad that it warrants suffering/judgement. Let me illustrate, if I cut a rose off my garden, it looks pretty but it will wither and die.
that is the case with all of humanity, we have been severed from the source of life, so it is expected that suffering happens.
Read the whole chapter.
God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.
We are all in the same position, we all deserve hell, we all deserve much much worse suffering all of us. God doesn't not have to do anything for you
he doesn't have to save anyone. The fact that he does is surprising.
Jesus death only saves the believers, those whom God has set apart to show grace to. But why does God choose anyone to be saved at all?
Not that straighforward. There is a reason my answer is general. Because why suffering exists because of the world (people that is) have rejected God and that is their
default position. God's answer is to remove a little bit of his goodness as a response. Which includes giving people over to their own desires.
Suit yourself. Only a general explanation of brokenness of this world. You do not understand the problem of sin so I don't expect it to be a good justification.
Firstly, hell = inevitable harm? It is not necessarily inevitable, some are saved. You should be asking why doesn't God save everyone. Because he doesn't have to.
The problem with the illustration used by both of us, it implies a future action. Unfortunately we have already rejected God, we are already condemned. Why doesn't God be fair
and punish us completely right now.
We are reflecting back on the past, and say could God have done it better, my answer, you need to know the future/big picture to be able to make that assessment.
(short answer - no)
When Adam sinned it was too late. Why didn't God prevent Adam sin? (Well it wasn't his plan)
Analogies can only be stretched so far. Maybe drugs was a loaded word.
A parent cannot stop their child from making decisions even they are against the word of the parent; and suffer the consequences of disobeying parents.
That is a better illustration.
Now God could, but would that be loving?
You aren't in some ways. Jesus taught very clearly on the subject that is why, I am simply explaining my position. You asked me a question, I answered.
This assumes that God operates in the same time ordered fashion that we do. God is outside of space and time, so your first comment is incoherent.
God knows all of time/space at once. God is.
Yes. That was an incoherence in this statement “The laws of physics are not always universal”.
dan964
what
anyways it is late/early may I say. I don't have the time to tidy up what I have written.
pick one topic and we'll address that at a time.
pick one topic and we'll address that at a time.
firebrace1
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2018
- Messages
- 1
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2019
because god gives us free will, we can make our own decision which decides if your accepted into heaven or sent to hell. if you deny him he will deny you.
jackyjack96
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
- Messages
- 26
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2014
It's impossible to prove that God does or does not exist...still I'd argue no because human's construct ideologies...
If you look at the course of human history we've had hundreds of different kinds of religions, deities, and spiritualities. Religions depend on the social context of the time. Plus often people believe in God because it's been passed on as a social "tradition" or it offers certainty, or acts as a medicine for the people.
We've had animism, polytheism, monotheism...there will be something new in the future.
Plus when we say God what do we mean by God? And who's God? You could argue that the universe is spiritual in the way that it creates new stars galaxies, life as we know it on Earth...is existence itself Godly?
If you look at the course of human history we've had hundreds of different kinds of religions, deities, and spiritualities. Religions depend on the social context of the time. Plus often people believe in God because it's been passed on as a social "tradition" or it offers certainty, or acts as a medicine for the people.
We've had animism, polytheism, monotheism...there will be something new in the future.
Plus when we say God what do we mean by God? And who's God? You could argue that the universe is spiritual in the way that it creates new stars galaxies, life as we know it on Earth...is existence itself Godly?
natnat1995
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2019
- Messages
- 11
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2013
Humans create God! It's that simple
Squar3root
realest nigga
dan964
what
yeah nah;
do you have any evidence for that claim?
dan964
what
he will probably think you are trying to brainwash him if you try to prove him wrong
dan964
what
a wee bit late to the party
so tell us about this atheism Patrick
also define terms:
what do you mean by God.
what do you mean by exist.
(what do you mean by does - silly question)
God being a creator and ruler, a superhuman being or spirit with the power to create The Universe etc.
By definition 'nothing' can not exist. Therefore what is left is existence. We are a very very small part of existence.
10/10 Proof.
dan964
what
Interesting you said here a being (or spirit); not an eternal force (or an endless universe). How does one study the essence of something, outside of the scope of science (assumption a rudimentary definition of science: empirical studies based on assumption that the laws of nature are fairly constant)?
Another interesting point, why the 'superhuman' component? Just curious what thought went into this.
Nothing is a very flaky and relative concept to the context.
Depends on what you mean by nothing - it would have to be completely devoid of everything including mathematical concepts and all physical laws to be an absolute nothing (which is mind-boggling inconceivable).
So probing detail "what do you mean by what is left?"
Scientifically (which makes no moral/value judgements btw), yes.
dan964
what
hardly, it has an ambiguous definition of 'nothing'. Nothing on a bank statement very different to no money in the whole world. Scope is important.
It presumes the only things that can exist, must be things that exist; often with an underlying assumption that only things we can see/touch/empirically observe must exist.
Atheism i find tends to approach God like he is an iceberg, no wonder you conclude he cannot exist.
Anyways he still needs to define 'exist'
Last edited:
1. Where did God come from if he created everything?
2. Why do diseases etc. still exist given an all-loving god?
3. Are you talking about a God which is not a "human god"?
4. Given that God doesn't concern himself with human matters, what would allow for us to say he exists?
5. Where would God have gotten his powers from? Did another God give him those powers? Paradox?
6. Does it really matter for us to concern ourselves with something that we can't know when there's actually important stuff at hand?
Well as far as I know from the religions that I have studied, God is considered a being(or spirit). There are many different interpretations of these and all of which are different. If God was an external force then I would not consider that to be a God, it would just be a force of Nature. It's the same as saying Gravity is 'God'. We can't see Gravity, we can only observe it's effects on everything around us, that doesn't mean it is a God doing something but rather a construct of nature. A unique force that exists due to Mass and Energy.
Take Christianity for example, Demons are regularly described as being 'evil spirits' and many have had different Physical interpretations, so one would think God is the opposite of that as a 'Good spirit'.
Really the idea of there being a 'God' by the definition of a being(or spirit) is not at all proven due to what it takes to prove something in the world of Science. It is nothing but a theory and one can not say that theory is certainly right(or wrong) but it cannot just be accepted and said right when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest so. The bible is not evidence because it is a man made creation.
Anyone can come up with a theory for how everything came to be but it will not be accepted unless of course it is proven. Now some people may have 100% faith in the god described by their religion but it can not be used to prove or show anything if it came to court for example.
Last edited:
You guys are overcomplicating this topic. If god exists, so what? If god doesn't exist, so what? Who gives a sht?