On God's existence

This is a thorny issue. very thorny indeed.
I think I could probably write a good few thousands words on this so I try to keep it as concise as possible:

God's existence depends on the definition of existence.

That is to say, we must first define what it means to exist before we can deliberate about God's existence. If we do not clearly define to ourselves what we consider to be a criteria of existence, we cannot elaborate on God's existence. My dictionary simply defines existence "as a state of being". It poses that the question of 'do birds exist' can be paraphrased as 'there are birds'. This doesn't specify where they are: in the real world (which we perceive with our senses) or in our mind (which we perceive with our imagination).

When we say that something exists in the real world i.e. the sensory world, what we really say is that we can confirm it's existence with our senses. For example, we can see the birds in the sky and this serves us as a proof of existence for these birds in particular and the concept of birds in general. But what if our senses deceive us? We may not be sure what we are actually seeing, smelling or hearing.

Let me illustrate this by example of a true story. A while ago I was sitting in my doctor's waiting room, where music was softly playing in an attempt to soothe the boredom of the patients. At some point an old man came into the room who, after a few minutes, asked me if the music was real: Did I also hear the music? On my confirmation of this, he seemed satisfied that the music was not, as he feared, only between his ears but outside as well. I was very tempted to ask him if he could also hear the voices, or whether they were only in my head, but decided to abandon the idea for the sake of the other people in the room ;)

Now imagine this was not the waiting room of a normal doctor (which was the case) but of a psychologist specialised in musicophilia[1]. All his patients are hearing music in their heads but the waiting room is devoid of music. If the patients would start talking among each other about the music they hear in their heads, they'd probably come to the conclusion that the music is actually real, but will soon start to argue about the true type of music. Because each is convinced the music they hear is real, a conflict is inevitable when one patient hears Bach and the other hears Guns 'n roses. So we get a (potentially explosive) situation in a waiting room where people are arguing not only about the nature of their sensory experiences but also about the validity of the same. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Then we have the type of existence which is only valid in our mind. For example emotions: nobody would deny the existence of hate or fear even though these are not tangible in the conventional sensory way. I have earlier stated that spirituality is an emotion, which in this school of thinking can be considered real, because it exists in the head. But only there! Hate or love only exist in their original form within the mind, and so does the spiritual emotion. Whether this spiritual emotion finds its origins in a higher being of some sort, or this spiritual emotion finds it's destination in a higher being other than a higher being merely imagined by the bearer of said emotion, could be debated for hours. Probably perpetual. But I wanted to be concise!

The fact that something or someone exists in our minds doesn't mean the same entity exists out there in the real world, most of all the existence of a thing or a concept that exists in our head does not warrant the existence of the same in the real world. We cannot be sure of the existence of said thing or concept until we either find in the real world something that closely resembles what we have in mind, or create the thing we have in mind by ourselves in the real world. One must, at all times, make a clear distinction between what exists in the mind and what exists outside of it. In religion, these things get mixed up, and the concepts that exist in the mind are projected on the outside world.

If we find the thing in the real world which we imagined within our mind, how can we be sure if this is really the same thing? For example many people see God's hand in all kinds of phenomena in the real world, but isn't that just a perception, don't they attribute God to the phenomenon because they want to see it? What proof does that constitute?

That leads of course to another question: the concept of acceptable proof. If believers see the proof for god's existence in certain phenomena, this proof should be closely examined.
We can prove the existence of radioactivity because it is measurable and it's effects have been scientifically studied and proven. So even though we cannot feel, smell, hear or taste radioactivity, we can see the effects it causes in the world. Such proof does not exist of God.

All so-called evidence for the existence of God or God-like creatures is based on wishful thinking and faith. Wishful in the sense that we are trying to find an explanation for unexplainable things, in a way that fits within our street of thinking. When believers put forward the complexity of the human body, the world and the universe as a proof of God, it is because they wish to see it as a proof. They *believe* their proof to be valid. My dictionary gives the following explanation of the verb 'to believe':

To have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.

So the term believing contains in itself the fact that there is no absolute proof that the believers version of the truth is really the absolute truth. Don't believers shoot themselves in the foot by calling themselves believers instead of 'knowers'? Well maybe according to Atheists, but not according to themselves. The believer does accept the proof for the existence of God which is handed down to him by his society and religion, and manages and designs his life (and in some case lives of others) as if this proof is absolute.

If we assume that there is only one God, only one version of the truth, a believer would not only have to provide proof for the existence of his personal God, and the unique nature of the validity of this truth, to the Atheists, but also to everyone who believes in a different God. The fact that so many people are actually trying to prove their God and their version of the truth is the only right one, is the cause for more trouble in the world than the question is actually worth. And the fact that people defend their God and their truth to be the only valid one, adds only insult to the injury already done to the world by people who run all their lives (and lives of others!) by a set of truths for which they have no absolute proof to be right.

We can thus think about the existence of God according to the Hegelian principle:

1)Thesis, by the theist: God does exist.

The proofs for the existence of God are handed down by God himself through religion. So if you believe in God, and accept the proof he provides, this is enough confirmation for the existence of God. In other words: a self-fulfilling prophecy.
2)Antithesis, by the atheist: God does not exist.

Therefore, he cannot create any proofs for his own existence. Until somebody else comes with a valid proof of God's existence we must assume that he does not exist.
3)Synthesis (by the syntheist?): God exists somehow.
He exists only in the mind of believers: those who accept the proofs for God's existence. Until everyone agrees about valid proof for the existence of God(s) or (a) godlike creature(s), and said proof has been provided, we must assume that he/they only exist(s) in the minds of believers.

So what I established in this post, contrary to what the reader might have expected due to the title, is not a list of pros and cons of the existence of god-like creatures in general or one specific god in particular, as this would continue a perpetual spiral of discussions, but a concise philosophy about existence and proof of god-like creatures.

Once we have established for ourselves the existence or non-existence of something, in this case God, we must establish how much meaning we attribute to it's existence or lack thereof. We may after all establish for ourselves that God does exist but attribute no importance to his existence. Or we may not believe in God but attribute a great importance to this point of view.
So whether we believe in God or not, in designing and managing our life we must establish how much we let the consequences of this belief influence the way we manage and design our lives.

1: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17818400