NationStates Jolt Archive

A few notes first, before you read: firstly what you are about to read is a set of notes I concocted when I was following a train of thought. Therefore I accept that it is more than likely that these notes are utter garbage.

Secondly, when I refer to God, I do not mean the Christian deity in particular. I refer to the notion of all supreme, divine beings from all religions (except at one point, where I refer to Medieval Europe, which obviously means I am citing the Christian god as an example).

Quite frankly, the 'God or no God' debate drives me up the wall because it always ends up in the same place. The atheists will ask the theists to prove the existence of a God and the theists will ask the atheists to prove the non-existence of a God. The unfortunate fact is that neither can respond adequately to each other's question due to lack of any definitive evidence and so they will generally shout at each for all eternity while not even proceeding.

It is my opinion that the very question "Does God exist?" is an inadequate one. It can be answered very quickly and very consisely: Yes, He does exist for everyone, regardless of your beliefs. This is because he exists as a principle, as a thought, as an idea, as a character. By even discussing Him, we are granting God some form of existence. Existence should not be confined to the realms of physical manifestation - a thought, for example, exists even though it may have no physical form. The same might be said for a dream or a character in a book. Thus, God exists in this sense.

Another sense in which God exists is the realm of belief. Although you or I may not believe in the 'existence' of God, some people do. When they believe in Him, for them (and I must stress that word) He becomes a physical reality. To believers, there is little or no question as to whether God exists because, due to their belief, He assumes a concrete form within their mind's eye. Therefore, most people will acknowledge in the existence of God by proxy: they will acknowledge that people believe in God and, by doing so, acknowledge that God exists in some form, that form being as a personal belief held by others.

Thus, we can conclude that, in certain senses of the word, God does exist, if only in the same way Father Christmas exists for small children. So essentially, atheists should redefine the very question that they ask of theists and of themselves.

Ultimately the validity of the question will settle on one point: the parameters we as individuals place upon the term of 'existence'. And because of the highly individual nature of this parameter placement, there can never be one set answer that meets the generalised meaning of the question "Does God exist?" A million answers may be formulated by a million people and each one of those answers will be correct to the person who formulated it, because the answer is granted validity by that person's belief in it. Thus, it matters little whether God exists or not: all that matters is that one view or the other is believed in. Whether the belief is right or wrong, it can never effectively be disproven.

Thus we come to the question of the effect of human belief on reality.

Reality is easily distorted by belief. This is for the very simple reason that reality is viewed through the eyes of the beholder - in other words, reality holds a subjective value in the mind of the human being.

A nice example is a tree with two people standing at different view points. One person sees one perspective of the tree and thus he believes (for there is no such thing as certain knowledge in the universe due to individual perspectives creating distortions) that the reality of tree is the view that he has just taken in. The other person sees a different image of the tree and that image becomes his reality. Thus we see that our individualistic way of forming our view of reality ultimately changes that reality to meet with our beliefs.

Therefore, I have come to the view that humans are much like iron bars, all shaped differently. Reality is much like plastercine hurled at these bars at a high velocity. When reality impacts, it forms itself around the contours of the person.

This perception invites the argument; does reality change to our view point or are we all looking at one, singular iron certainty in different ways? I would argue that the debate about God illustrates that reality is bent around us. In the case of the tree, we would find out that our two realities (the two different images of the same tree) are in fact one and the same through social interaction. Thus I would subject that reality (as we see it) is not an iron certainty but is instead a belief that is given widespread social acceptance. The God argument is a case of two juxtaposed realities (a reality where no God is perceived and a reality where a God is perceived)clash. Which side of the debate is the reality? Thus we have two different realities, neither granted enough widespread social credence to be able to claim to be THE reality. This leads us to the conclusion that when, at some point in the possible future, one view gains widespread social acceptance, humans will have essentially altered the substance of reality by altering their beliefs. The reality of the medieval Europe was widespread acceptance that there was a God - for them this was a reality because they all believed it. Then, at our hypothetical future point, when society accepts that God does not exist, a new reality will have come formed. Through observing the process of this change, we see that humans effect and mould the reality which they inhabit.

So, in light of this, does God exist? He does and He also doesn't. Because we have two different view points (remember the example of the tree prior to social interaction), we have two different realities. There is no one answer because society has not decided upon a singular answer to which they will give widespread acceptance. Thus, we come back to the point that God exists as a personal choice.

So the question "Does God exist" is rendered defunct, both in actuality (this refers to the points made in the first few paragraphs on the nature of existence) and theoretically (the question of reality and my theoretical examination of it). It is a question to which there is no plausible answer because there is no one single view of reality with which to answer it.

"Existence" is kinda minor, in terms of God's properties and abilities.. But you're right to say that God is both essence and existence, super-essence and super-extant.. at least from what I remember of my Med. Phl. classes. :p Either way, God has some supercool quiddity and haeccaity. :)

Let me help to sought out the confusion. God does not excist. Neither does the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny.

Here why: God is omnipotent, why means he must occupy every point of the universe at once, since physics tells us no two peices of matter can occupy the same space at the same time, we must assume either God does not excist or he excists as the universe itself. In which case worshipping him makes as much sent as my foot worshipping me.

Let me help to sought out the confusion. God does not excist. Neither does the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny.

Here why: God is omnipotent, why means he must occupy every point of the universe at once, since physics tells us no two peices of matter can occupy the same space at the same time, we must assume either God does not excist or he excists as the universe itself. In which case worshipping him makes as much sent as my foot worshipping me.
Oh, and the spirtual side doesn't matter because the action of a being is the only thing we can measure and without a physical relationship, a spirtual God is irrelivant.

Here why: God is omnipotent, why means he must occupy every point of the universe at once, since physics tells us no two peices of matter can occupy the same space at the same time, we must assume either God does not excist or he excists as the universe itself. In which case worshipping him makes as much sent as my foot worshipping me.

Pfft. "Physics." God created the laws of physics, but can't alter them? I'd say God exists as the universe, in that nothing exists outside of God, but also doesn't exist, as he can pass in and out of existence at will, since, after all, He created existence when He created Being. Simple enough. :p

Oh, and the spirtual side doesn't matter because the action of a being is the only thing we can measure and without a physical relationship, a spirtual God is irrelivant.

But that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it has no effect on us, nor does it mean God is nonexistent. And, if we can't measure the spiritual, how do we know that physical occurences aren't motivated by the spiritual?

Let me help to sought out the confusion. God does not excist. Neither does the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny.

By the very fact that you just mentioned them, they have assumed an existence. Possibly not a physical one but nevertheless, they have become concepts and so have a form of existence.

Also, if people believe in the existence (and the evidence against existence does not satisfy their own parameters justifying non-existence) of God, then he will exist for them as a belief. Thus he does assume some sort of existence.

since physics tells us no two peices of matter can occupy the same space at the same time, we must assume either God does not excist or he excists as the universe itself.

I shall quote from myself:

there is no such thing as certain knowledge in the universe due to individual perspectives creating distortions

In short, science is yet another belief granted ascendancy by the acceptance of society and also some discernible physical proof. However, we can never be 100% certain about anything due to the way in which we as people distort reality.

It is not reality which matters: people, and the way in which they perceive reality, matters. The individual is the iron certainty, not the reality.

Let me help to sought out the confusion. God does not excist. Neither does the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny.

Here why: God is omnipotent, why means he must occupy every point of the universe at once, since physics tells us no two peices of matter can occupy the same space at the same time, we must assume either God does not excist or he excists as the universe itself. In which case worshipping him makes as much sent as my foot worshipping me.

Doesn't your answer presume that God is somehow physical matter? If God is not physical matter then the point about "no two pieces of matter occuping the same space at the same time" doesn't apply. True or not?

Here why: God is omnipotent, why means he must occupy every point of the universe at once, since physics tells us no two peices of matter can occupy the same space at the same time, we must assume either God does not excist or he excists as the universe itself. In which case worshipping him makes as much sent as my foot worshipping me.

Why does omnipotent require him to be at all places simultaneously? If he's all powerful and all knowing, couldn't he simply appear where needed simply as an extension of his will? He could branch in to the physical selectively since he created it in the first place.

In short, science is yet another belief granted ascendancy by the acceptance of society and also some discernible physical proof. However, we can never be 100% certain about anything due to the way in which we as people distort reality.


Sure, but if you eliminate science down to the last scrap of paper in the last scientific text, and execute anyone with scientific knowledge, science will reappear and reassert itself in another group of people with other opinions. It's not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. I believe the same principle exists with God.. God asserts Himself temporally when He deals with us directly, and that record can be destroyed or muddled or lost with time.. but God will reassert Himself and His principles even if the last believer were burned, because He represents a constant and singular set of truths that can't be altered, only interpreted. But I suppose both notions are articles of faith, based on the persistence of principles.

Sure, but if you eliminate science down to the last scrap of paper in the last scientific text, and execute anyone with scientific knowledge, science will reappear and reassert itself in another group of people with other opinions

Let us take history as an example to disprove your point.

If I was in the (purely theoretical) position of being able to destroy all of human knowledge on the the year 1000 to the year 1100 and replace it with my own version, how would future generations tell the difference between my fiction and the reality?

The answer is they would not be able to because they would have no knowledge of the reality that actually occured and thus my fiction would become their reality. Therefore it is entirely possible to change entire sections of what we view as firm fact.

The answer is they would not be able to because they would have no knowledge of the reality that actually occured and thus my fiction would become their reality. Therefore it is entirely possible to change entire sections of what we view as firm fact.

It depends on whether or not the thing in question can be independently verified. History and literature are almost impossible to verify independently (for obvious reasons), while natural sciences can be both independently verified and discovered as long as someone is willing to do the work.

Quite frankly, the 'God or no God' debate drives me up the wall because it always ends up in the same place. The atheists will ask the theists to prove the existence of a God and the theists will ask the atheists to prove the non-existence of a God. The unfortunate fact is that neither can respond adequately to each other's question due to lack of any definitive evidence and so they will generally shout at each for all eternity while not even proceeding.

Somebody sees it my way! (in a sense;))

It drives me up the wall too and I had a 'shout out' with an atheist as my very first posts on NS:mp5: I'm not religious till you say something that makes me 'hopping off the wall.' People can believe what they want to believe is my view. If you're Cristian, or a really good person, I believe we go to Heaven, if you don't believe and are not a very good person, you go to hell.

The only way athiests will ever know they're wrong (OR right) is if the moon ever turns blood shot red and God shows with his angles to safe all of us.

PS: When I think of the red moond and God coming to get us, I picture graves opening and white figures floating towards him in kind of a beautiful since:rolleyes:

God shows with his angles to safe all of us.

Which angles will these be? Acute angles? Obtuse angles? Straight angles? Reflex angles?

Or perhaps you mean the Germanic tribe, the Angles?

:)

Let us take history as an example to disprove your point.

If I was in the (purely theoretical) position of being able to destroy all of human knowledge on the the year 1000 to the year 1100 and replace it with my own version, how would future generations tell the difference between my fiction and the reality?

The answer is they would not be able to because they would have no knowledge of the reality that actually occured and thus my fiction would become their reality. Therefore it is entirely possible to change entire sections of what we view as firm fact.

Obliterating history won't change the laws of science, or the principles of God, if you believe they exist, as I'll stipulate here. If probing the nature of an action leads necessarily to a set of truths, any given group of people will eventually arrive there through reason. If God changes the laws of physics or His own logic in the interim, between 1000 and 1100, then they would reemerge altered, but my point was that laws aren't dependent on perception, even if "reality" can be altered to explain those laws in different ways. History can be lost permanently or altered permanently, but God's laws, and, say, the laws of physics, will reassert themselves through anything.

Which angles will these be? Acute angles? Obtuse angles? Straight angles? Reflex angles?

Or perhaps you mean the Germanic tribe, the Angles?

:)

No, he's going to screw with us and use polar coordinates and radians. Hope you remember your calculus.;)

It depends on whether or not the thing in question can be independently verified. History and literature are almost impossible to verify independently (for obvious reasons), while natural sciences can be both independently verified and discovered as long as someone is willing to do the work.

That's a better way of making this point. :p

Which angles will these be? Acute angles? Obtuse angles? Straight angles? Reflex angles?

Or perhaps you mean the Germanic tribe, the Angles?

:)

The angels with the feather wings;) Some days I'm a bad typer but aren't we all?

EDIT~~~ Glad to see I brought sunshine to everybody's day:p :fluffle:

Well...i BELIEVE that you didnt post your initial topic. Does that make it right? No. Some BELIEVE god exists, does that make it right? No. god has absolutely no place or reason in our world, or will as soon as we get alittle further into space. Then, once we have scientific evidence for the creation of the universe, space, galaxies, the earth, and humans, maybe the god-believers will shut up.

But this may take awhile.

Obliterating history won't change the laws of science, or the principles of God, if you believe they exist, as I'll stipulate here. If probing the nature of an action leads necessarily to a set of truths, any given group of people will eventually arrive there through reason. If God changes the laws of physics or His own logic in the interim, between 1000 and 1100, then they would reemerge altered, but my point was that laws aren't dependent on perception, even if "reality" can be altered to explain those laws in different ways. History can be lost permanently or altered permanently, but God's laws, and, say, the laws of physics, will reassert themselves through anything.

I see your point but I would also ask that you take my orginal idea (that humans can essentially alter reality) to their most extreme extent. That would be the idea that we can, through strength of belief, alter our entire surroundings.

It is not beyond countenance that such a thing could happen. Take dreams for example. Dreams simulate a reality and they can do so with incredibly realistic effects. They can make generate fear, anxiety and many other reactions but they are not, in a conventional sense, real. However while we are in the dream, most of time we are in the belief that the dream world is the reality. As dreams are not subject to the laws of physics, is it not impossible to suggest that our own belief essentially alters our perception of reality and, in doing that, reality itself?

Alas, we now treck into the Matrix-tainted shores of "How do we know we aren't in a dream?" It is my frank opinion that we do not know nor can ever know. The human ability to create reality is quite strong and so I would say that it could, if it so desired, bend the rules of physics if it perceived the rules of physics differently.

Anyways...

Vin Diesel, along with Mr. T, conspired to create this notion of God so that we wouldn't worship them openly.

Logical, isn't it?

Well...i BELIEVE that you didnt post your initial topic. Does that make it right? No

Oh to the contary, if you believe in that strongly enough, if your belief receives enough social acceptance and if your belief meets your own parameters on whether I posted here or not, then it could be that I did not post here.

However, you are unlikely to gain social credence for your idea and, as you are not in total isolation, society will not accept your belief thus denying it the status of reality. Equally, I doubt that this belief meets your own parameters on whether I posted here or not, as there is substantial physical evidence to that do meet the usual parameters to prove the existence of my post.

Imagine though, that you have the lack of evidence required to meet your parameters required to believe in the non-existence of my post and that society agrees with you. Would it become a reality then? I think so.

Well...i BELIEVE that you didnt post your initial topic. Does that make it right? No. Some BELIEVE god exists, does that make it right? No. god has absolutely no place or reason in our world, or will as soon as we get alittle further into space. Then, once we have scientific evidence for the creation of the universe, space, galaxies, the earth, and humans, maybe the god-believers will shut up.

But this may take awhile.

Oh and you make the assumption I believe in God. I have never stated a preference to either atheism or theism in the post - although I surmise God exists as a concept and for other people, I have never said he exists as a supreme divine being for myself. I, am in fact, agnostic because neither side of that particular argument makes much sense to me.

Regardless, why is it importent?

To goddidit's; does it make a difference? Really? Wouldn't you pray, go to church, whatever, and wouldn't your life be exactly the same, whether god really did it or not?

And to atheists (yea, you agnostics are athesists too, unles you believe in a religion): Short of death, how could it possibly matte rto you?

To me it's completely irrelevant. I'm me. If God id there, then he's have to deal with me whether I believed in him or not. The only difference there could possibl7y be would be me either faking belief or faking disbelief.

I see your point but I would also ask that you take my orginal idea (that humans can essentially alter reality) to their most extreme extent. That would be the idea that we can, through strength of belief, alter our entire surroundings.

It is not beyond countenance that such a thing could happen. Take dreams for example. Dreams simulate a reality and they can do so with incredibly realistic effects. They can make generate fear, anxiety and many other reactions but they are not, in a conventional sense, real. However while we are in the dream, most of time we are in the belief that the dream world is the reality. As dreams are not subject to the laws of physics, is it not impossible to suggest that our own belief essentially alters our perception of reality and, in doing that, reality itself?

Alas, we now treck into the Matrix-tainted shores of "How do we know we aren't in a dream?" It is my frank opinion that we do not know nor can ever know. The human ability to create reality is quite strong and so I would say that it could, if it so desired, bend the rules of physics if it perceived the rules of physics differently.

Reminds me of the old (probably apocryphal) anecdote that had President Eisenhower being introduced to the supercomputer, which, he was told, could answer any question imaginable, leading Ike to jokingly ask the computer "Is there a God?" to which the scientists, flipping on the machinery, answered "there is now." :p Cute, but probably invented much later. I don't doubt that people can be lead to believe anything, and will believe anything under the right circumstances. It's only that my faith leads me to believe the laws of science and the laws of God will inevitably present themselves, even if people choose not to believe in God or think in scientific terms. Even if not a single solitary human being believes in them, the truth remains, obscured but available.

So if everyone were to stop preaching, talking, writing, or thinking about god/s then god/s would cease to exist? Sounds like a movie I once watched...

To me it's completely irrelevant. I'm me. If God id there, then he's have to deal with me whether I believed in him or not. The only difference there could possibl7y be would be me either faking belief or faking disbelief.

Presumably, God would know whether you were faking belief or were sincere. The fly in the ointment there would be scripture that holds that a.) there are consequences to defying scripture and b.) a judgment will be held that will be able to tell whether you sincerely followed his Word. In that case, you would probably want to obey God if you took as a given that he did exist. But sure, minus any scripture or revealed truth, the existence of a generic creator wouldn't mean much. The devil's in the details. :p

Somebody sees it my way! (in a sense;))

It drives me up the wall too and I had a 'shout out' with an atheist as my very first posts on NS:mp5: I'm not religious till you say something that makes me 'hopping off the wall.' People can believe what they want to believe is my view. If you're Cristian, or a really good person, I believe we go to Heaven, if you don't believe and are not a very good person, you go to hell.

The only way athiests will ever know they're wrong (OR right) is if the moon ever turns blood shot red and God shows with his angles to safe all of us.

PS: When I think of the red moond and God coming to get us, I picture graves opening and white figures floating towards him in kind of a beautiful since:rolleyes:

I doubt that would do it. Belief is something that has to be accepted and all the astronomical parlor tricks are not going to do it either.

People that do not want to believe will not believe. It's that simple.

Let me help to sought out the confusion. God does not excist. Neither does the tooth fairy, or the easter bunny.

Here why: God is omnipotent, why means he must occupy every point of the universe at once, since physics tells us no two peices of matter can occupy the same space at the same time, we must assume either God does not excist or he excists as the universe itself. In which case worshipping him makes as much sent as my foot worshipping me.
Firstly, your foot probably would worship you if it had sentience. After all, it gets everything it needs from you as a person; grooming, defence against diseases, a food pipeline, warmth, some way of getting rid of its waste products and a structure of bone and muscle to keep it together. Why shouldn't it?

Secondly, you're making the assumption that God is omnipotent, as well as the assumption that he exists. You need to question the omnipotency of God before you can declare it a logical contradiction of God's existence.

Presumably, God would know whether you were faking belief or were sincere. The fly in the ointment there would be scripture that holds that a.) there are consequences to defying scripture and b.) a judgment will be held that will be able to tell whether you sincerely followed his Word. In that case, you would probably want to obey God if you took as a given that he did exist. But sure, minus any scripture or revealed truth, the existence of a generic creator wouldn't mean much. The devil's in the details. :p
I don't think I made it past the second sentence... Still, it's not really a case of a fly in the ointment, is it? Sure God would know what one thought. Hell, he'd know who one fantasized about when one jerked off as a 11 year old.
God's a kiny bastard, according to all sources.

But how on Earth would that impact your belief? I'm gonna assume you're a believer. No reason really, I just want to. So if you believe in the wrong God, or perhaps think the anti-God is the God, how will that set you apart from me - wo believes in cold beer, hard guys & wet gurls?

Will not being crude save you? Will being crude save you?
Will it make a difference? Does Jesus have something to do with it? Does saying "Christ! That hurt!" save you?

... Regardless of how right you are - and sure, you may be - it's all a case of brain-fuck-itis. But good luck with yours, and beter luck with mine (not that you don't deserve good luck, I just know me better... I think).

I sincerely believe that our Creator doesn't give a damn one way or another what we believe. What is is what is, our beliefs don't change what is. We are insignificant litle blips in the vast universe, little pieces of carbon with self-importance. Bah.

Thanks all. This question and answer session has allowed me to answer questions about my theory that I was unable to answer previously.

Thanks all. This question and answer session has allowed me to answer questions about my theory that I was unable to answer previously.
I'm curious: what questions did you get answered?

I have a theory. I think God existed once, broke the laws of physics( By existing in all places at once) and was jailed by whatever force governs the universe. I realize that I am contradicting myself here, but whatever.:D

:D Might as well find humor in our dilemna. Now there is another good topic, unless already done, why humans need humor. I know why, but I'm sure there will be many diverse opinions.

"Yes, God does exist and Yes, God doesn't exist"

Yes. God is in a perpetual state of superposition vis a vis his/her existence/non-existence due to the Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I thought everyone knew that! :D

It is my opinion that the very question "Does God exist?" is an inadequate one.
Yes, He does exist for everyone, regardless of your beliefs. This is because he exists as a principle, as a thought, as an idea, as a character. By even discussing Him, we are granting God some form of existence.
Thus, God exists in this sense.
A belief of a thing and the thing believed in are not the same.

As just one example of a distinguishing characteristic of a 'God' that is believed to exist and the belief itself (or the principal/idea of a 'God' and content of the principal/idea); the 'God' referred to in the bible does not require human beings to exist for it to exist, but the belief of 'God' that you are pointing to existing, is reliant on the existence of human beings.

If something can exist without human beings, and something cannot exist without human beings, then those two somethings cannot logically be the same something.

Thus, we can conclude that, in certain senses of the word, God does exist, if only in the same way Father Christmas exists for small children.
Those senses are not the sense that anyone appears to be in dispute about (so far as I am aware) with regards to the existence of 'God'.

In essence you are defining the message by the quality of the media. If there is static interference effecting the picture on my tv during a live broadcast, is it necessary to conclude that the scene being filmed is itself characterised by horizontal banded lines rolling vertically downwards and positioned between the camera and the thing being filmed, and a loud 'shshshsh' type noise? Words are a medium, not the message itself; the 'noise' that might be present in a medium are not necessarily traits of the message.

When people state 'God exists' they dont mean 'as a belief' or 'God is a belief' they mean that there is a particular 'thing' that has particular traits and characteristics distinct from the traits and characteristics of a 'human belief'.

Ultimately the validity of the question will settle on one point: the parameters we as individuals place upon the term of 'existence'.
I'm not convinced. I dont believe that that qualities of the thing meant by 'God' in the question 'does God exist' are identical to the qualities of the thing you are telling us exists. I dont believe that what you are calling 'God' is the 'God' that Christians for example refer to.

Reality is easily distorted by belief.
Is it? I dont think that is necessarily true., in fact I doubt it is true at all.

This is for the very simple reason that reality is viewed through the eyes of the beholder - in other words, reality holds a subjective value in the mind of the human being.
Aha, but I dont see that there is any reason to believe that a view of reality and reality are the same thing, nor do I see any reason to believe a subjective value and reality are the same thing.

A nice example is a tree with two people standing at different view points. One person sees one perspective of the tree and thus he believes (for there is no such thing as certain knowledge in the universe due to individual perspectives creating distortions) that the reality of tree is the view that he has just taken in. The other person sees a different image of the tree and that image becomes his reality.
'His reality'? I dont see any reason to believe that there is more than one reality, nor that anyone person has ownership of reality. Unless there is some reason to believe that the image is actually a reality, it seems more likely to me that the image forms part of the person's perception of reality.

Thus we see that our individualistic way of forming our view of reality ultimately changes that reality to meet with our beliefs.
No I dont see that.
That reality is not static seems apparent to me, but that it ultimately changes to meet our beliefs doesnt seem so.

Therefore, I have come to the view that humans are much like iron bars, all shaped differently. Reality is much like plastercine hurled at these bars at a high velocity. When reality impacts, it forms itself around the contours of the person.
I dont think reality is 'hurled' at people. To me this is suggesting that the whole is being hurled at some part of itself. I dont see how the whole can be hurled at a part of itself.

This perception invites the argument; does reality change to our view point or are we all looking at one, singular iron certainty in different ways?
I would expect that reality changes, but not to our veiw point. To me this is suggesting the whole changes to become only a part of itself.

I would argue that the debate about God illustrates that reality is bent around us. In the case of the tree, we would find out that our two realities (the two different images of the same tree) are in fact one and the same through social interaction.
I dont see that two realities are involved. It looks to me like one reality that includes the two different images.

Thus I would subject that reality (as we see it) is not an iron certainty but is instead a belief that is given widespread social acceptance.
I think you are conflating perspective within reality with reality. Why would our ability to objectively perceive reality be a necessary pre-requisite for the existence of an objective reality?

The God argument is a case of two juxtaposed realities (a reality where no God is perceived and a reality where a God is perceived)clash.
It seems to me that having decided that people have different perceptions and from this have inferred that more than one reality exists. I dont see that one follows from the other.

Which side of the debate is the reality? Thus we have two different realities,
Er, two perceptions within reality, not two realities.

neither granted enough widespread social credence to be able to claim to be THE reality. This leads us to the conclusion that when, at some point in the possible future, one view gains widespread social acceptance, humans will have essentially altered the substance of reality by altering their beliefs.
I suggest the belief-alteration you refer to would be a change within reality.

Then, at our hypothetical future point, when society accepts that God does not exist, a new reality will have come formed. Through observing the process of this change, we see that humans effect and mould the reality which they inhabit.
I dont know that 'mould' is appropriate, but of course humans effect reality. They are part of reality and so really this is no more than saying 'reality is self-effecting'.

So, in light of this, does God exist? He does and He also doesn't.
I doubt that anything can both exist and not exist at the same time.

Because we have two different view points (remember the example of the tree prior to social interaction), we have two different realities.
Do we really? Why would this be two different realities rather than two different view-points within one reality?

There is no one answer because society has not decided upon a singular answer to which they will give widespread acceptance. Thus, we come back to the point that God exists as a personal choice.
I dont think that the referrent of the word 'God' in your assertion is the same referrent commonly associated with the word.

:D Might as well find humor in our dilemna. Now there is another good topic, unless already done, why humans need humor. I know why, but I'm sure there will be many diverse opinions.

I dont believe there is a omnipotent being that somehow managed to create himself out of nothing (cool trick, but not buying it) that actually would give a rats' arse about some pidly blue planet, in a plidly solar system, in a pidly galaxy, in a pidly...... you get the idea.

I have seen some odd stuff that science cannot explain, but very possibly will in the future. Who knows, science may end up proving there is something out there too. The thing is as a scientist is to look for answers, whereever they may lead you.

I see people that "need" religion to keep them from hurting themselves and possibly others. For some it's a lift they need in their daily lives that gives them strength to overcome bad times. I don't see a problem in this and even though I don't believe there is a god (certainly not one in a biblical sence) I'm the one telling them to go to church.

The thing is, no one is going to change his or her mind by anything anyone posts here about this subject. I've only been here a couple weeks, and its been beaten to death in that short amount of time. Why bother? No one side is going to "educate" the other here. Religion and Politics are great for one thing, starting fights. Probably should not have even posted, but oh well, what can I say.

I do silly things sometimes. :p

Oh, and "heya" sexy. :cool: