God is Not Tinkerbell

"If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let Tink die."

Peter Pan - J.M. Barrie

"God is Dead"

Frederich Nietzsche

Dear God! Don't let God die! If you believe, then clap your hands. Genuflect! Testify! Sit, stand, kneel, sit, stand, kneel, sit, stand, kneel.

I am pretty sure that God is not dead, but am certain that Frederich Nietzsche is.

It seems to me that many people, atheists and true believers alike seem to believe that the existence of God is predicated upon belief. Now, I suppose the true believers would take issue with this and argue that God exists whether one believes in God or not, and certainly I would make the same argument, but for many religions, there seems to be doctrines that insist that non-believers will be punished for their non-belief. As if God needs people to believe in God. Is that what God believes?

Just what or who does God believe in? I suppose Christians would argue that God believes in Jesus, and some would also argue the Holy Spirit. I suppose Muslims would argue that God believes in Muhammad, and I suppose that Jews would argue that God believes in...well, the Jews. If God didn't believe the Jews would they cease to exist?

It is often argued that God made man in his own image, and then man returned the favor. The idea behind this is that humanity invented God, and in their invention declared that God invented humanity.

The atheist will insist that God does not exist because there is no proof of God's existence. The true believer will insist that God does exist but that you gotta have faith, baby.

For the atheist, God's existence is, for all intents and purposes, moot, and yet, there seem to many who claim atheism that seem to be obsessed with denigrating the true believer, and conversely there seem to many true believers who seem to be obsessed with denigrating the atheist. It strikes me that both camps have effectively reduced God to the equivalent of Tinkerbell. Belief is the necessary component of God, for both camps.

It is a strange argument this belief argument. I don't really believe in broccoli,and yet it exists. Of course, broccoli demonstrably exists, but I would argue that so does God. Hell, take a look at broccoli! How can one not see God in broccoli? Whoa! If I don't believe in broccoli, does this mean I don't believe in God?

But wait a cotton pickin' minute here, Jean Paul, some of you might be thinking. We can point to broccoli to show its existence. You can't point to God to show God's existence. Of course, I can't point to zero to prove its existence and yet we all, or most of us, accept zero as an acceptable equation. I can't point to nothing to show that I have nothing, but I have nothing just the same. Conversely, I can't point to everything and can only point to one of everything at any given point.

I wonder, do I have nothing because I believe I have nothing, and if I believed I had everything would I have everything? If I believed in Tinkerbell, would she fall in the forest?

God is not Tinkerbell, and the belief structures around God are not necessary in order for there to be a God. If science wants to disprove God, their best bet is to attempt to prove God. Of course, this would require a hypothesis based upon some observable phenomenon, or phenomena. What observable phenomenon or phenomena would we point to in order to formulate a God hypothesis? Could a God hypothesis lead to a God theory, and once a theory would God then become accepted as a viable complex system that describes the universe we live in?

It seems to me that God can not become a law and can only be, scientifically speaking and at best, a theory. A law is a set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical equation. A theory is a grand synthesis of a complex system of information about either a group of related phenomena or even everything.

It seems unlikely that science could ever disprove God, but it is always within the realm of possibility that science could prove the existence of God. As the passage goes; "With God, all things are possible."

The God question, or theory, or hypothesis is a mind boggling question. I really, in the end, don't know what to say about it, other than I believe in God, but just as surely as I believe in God, I don't believe in Tinkerbell.

There are not, despite my pretensions otherwise, many things I know in this world, but I do know this: I am pretty sure that God is not Tinkerbell, and that Frederich Nietzsche is still dead.

S&F. I agree.

I think that too many people judge the world, and God (whatever that concept may entail for them), upon their own experience and existence.

This is not a very mature and adult way to approach the big questions of life as it presupposes that we have some sort of answer.

Here's some assumptions I can make about God (based upon my poor logic):
God is beyond us - totally.
God does not need us (He/She/It) is self-sufficient.
God has not created us out of hurt or longing or insufficiency.
God existed for eternity without us before we were and will exist for eternity after us.

We should be less arrogant and more amazed that we are even noticed (as we obviously are).

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I can't speak for atheists because I am not one and I can't speak for anyone professing a belief in God because I am also not one of those I can however speak for myself so I will.

The reason I don't believe in God is because I don't know what the definition of God is. I have heard so many definitions I often wonder how one can believe in God and if they even know what they believe in. I have been well aware for quite awhile most Christians don't believe in the God described in the old testament and really don't worship the God in the new testament they worship Jesus and pay homage to God as creator. So if there is a God I would tend to agree with the thought that the God's existence is indeed not predicated upon belief.

I'm don't believe Science could prove the existence of God. What if the universe is a collection of consciousness that works without a single intelligence and is self governing, self growing, and self evolving. Under that premise the conventional definition of God couldn't function but science could pose many hypotheses where the tests would come back to look as if there is a God. I have heard more than few Christians tell me this is their God. I'm not sure how this could be but somehow the logical leap was taken. I believe any test science could devise to prove God would fail because there is no universal definition of God and the results of many tests could give us answers that look positive but point towards a thing we can't understand.

I think in the end all we have is belief. Regardless of if there is a God or not, regardless of if God requires belief to exist it doesn't matter because without belief the question would be mute. If I didn't believe in that broccoli it wouldn't matter that you were holding it in your hand to show me I would only see a green stalk and bushy top, I wouldn't see broccoli.

I agree. Will a time come when science starts to accept the possibility of god? I recall someone posting on a thread a while ago that the more they got into science, the more they believed in god

Am I a false believer? I don't think God requires belief to exist. I asked Him for a personal experience and I got it. Before that I was an atheist. Whether people like it or not the crucifixion was a true event, not just a myth, and to deny it is to speak from ignorance. If you have no belief in God, that doesn't mean God can't do whatever He pleases.

i am "atheist" i suppose, but my belief doesnt have a specific religion. yes, i do believe that belief is themost important part. i believe we are all gods of our own existence

for twenty years i believed there no god, and you know what? i was happy. i was what would qualify as happy, i spent money that just kept rolling in, and many times treated that money better than my fellow man. i never had any real issue untill i started seeing the small complexities in life that just cant be explained in words. i began to wake up and appreciate life. after that, everything was taken. i lost my child, my leg, my old house, my cars. and actually still feel happy.

i never had known true hope, and perserverance, relief. when i began believing, my life did change and i have no regrets. i miss my boy, and playing basketball, everything, and yet i see so much more beuty than i ever had

life seems to reward those who refuse to learn value of life with the means to learn that lesson, but the longer you take, the more dificult it will become

i believe that our lives are predetermined. by us, and everything ive experienced quantifies that for me.
belief is the key, they all use a method of focussing belief. (god/satan/allah/krishna/crystals/witches rings/anything) those are all just tools of focusing your belief.

you know what? it works

Originally posted by 547000
Am I a false believer? I don't think God requires belief to exist. I asked Him for a personal experience and I got it. Before that I was an atheist. Whether people like it or not the crucifixion was a true event, not just a myth, and to deny it is to speak from ignorance. If you have no belief in God, that doesn't mean God can't do whatever He pleases.

edit on 25-2-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

ahhh, but you did ask god in a directed way. you believed it enough to use god as a focus of your belief and you got that, you did have to ask for it right? 30/40 seconds of belief? that matters more than you are giving it credit

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Nietzsche wrote "God is dead".

God died in the 20th century and man died in the 21st century.

Man thought he would be free if there were no God...
...but free to what?
...and now who is man?

It is now thought that man invented God and now man does not know who he is.

reply to post by GenerationXisMarching


I told God if he was real to please give me an experience whereby I would know which path is the closest to Him and I'd be a liar if I denied His existence. If He didn't I wouldn't consider the possibility He was real again. And I experienced not just one, but several.

Dear JPZ,

if i didnt before, i certainly do now have a major crush on you.

i do not believe that i have ever heard a more appropriate metaphor than god/tinkerbell. certainly right up there with love/rose and desire/flame.

on a personal note, i am not so much an atheist as a dead-beat believer. probably very much for the reasons you have elaborated upon. i felt like the idea was tugging and wrenching, and importantly, manipulating my internal state. so much so that i realised that any belief that i could have in god would be ultimately self-serving......in order to quiet down all of that discomfort.

and really, that is just about the worst possible reason to believe in god, at all.


and now? i enjoy my discomfort. it feels more real to me than god ever did.

It's not a matter of belief in god, so much as an issue of "faith" and "belief" and the cognitive dissonance with corporeal reality. For me, I believe IN nothing, faith isn't a part of my "genetic makeup" neither is conformance.
And I agree with both the analogy and the fact that god is not tinkerbell. I note however that they both exist in the same realm, somewhat outside the currently experienced space time continuum we refer to as "the real world". Perhaps somewhere god and tinkerbell have cocktails with santa claus, the easter bunny, the boogey man, bigfoot, jesus, allah, the prophet, budda, and vishnu et al. who knows - it another conjecture just as likely as god or tinkerbell, the bible, the torah, the koran, the vedas, camelot and the holy grail, greek mythology, dianetics, or Harry Potter/Twilight/Star Wars/Trek movies.

SO to quote myself:
"Thoughts and ideas are free - Beliefs require an investment."
I'll even add a corollary:
"Faith requires a large investment AND ongoing commitment."

ganjoa

God believes in himself so he is a selfist. Atheists say God is an atheist because he doesn't believe in other Gods, but he does believe in himself, otherwise he wouldn't tell people he was God if he didn't believe he was God. So he's more of a selfist than an atheist.

Its hard to define something that we cannot perceive, yet which perceives us.

reply to post by SystemResistor


It's not that hard. I believe the word for it is "Peeping Tom"

I think that the spark of life that animates the flesh is proof of God's existence. Nothing in science comes close to adequately explaining living organisms.

If I were to put a face on God, I think Tinkerbell would be just fine. What can I say, I would rather worship a Goddess.

OP you bring up some valid points!.....I believe this "GOD" is a energy of good and love that we all have and its a choice to use it or not.....So i guess i believe we are all Gods because we all have this energy.....I do not believe there is a god UP THERE watching us and judging us like a controlling parent....Our egos do a good job of doing that.lol

Originally posted by 547000
Am I a false believer? I don't think God requires belief to exist. I asked Him for a personal experience and I got it. Before that I was an atheist. Whether people like it or not the crucifixion was a true event, not just a myth, and to deny it is to speak from ignorance. If you have no belief in God, that doesn't mean God can't do whatever He pleases.

How does the crucifixion prove the existence of G-d? You say the crucifixion is not a myth, where is the proof that it happened? Does it matter if you or I believe in G-d?

I don't know if there is a G-D, but do believe that there is a creative force, you may call it G-d if you wish, I prefer to call it a creative force that we don't understand.

Please can anyone here give me the answer to my questions?

reply to post by Aquarius1

How does the crucifixion prove the existence of G-d? You say the crucifixion is not a myth, where is the proof that it happened? Does it matter if you or I believe in G-d?

The crucifixion is an event in the life of Jesus, who is without a doubt a mythological hero. The mythology of Jesus has nothing at all to do with the historical accuracy of Jesus or the crucifixion. Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. are also mythological hero's, but no one doubts their existence. Perhaps a few thousand years from now people will, but today they don't.

It may not matter to God- and it is interesting that you place a hyphen between the G and the D of G-d, which seems to be a tradition rooted in Judaism out of respect for G-d - if you or I believe in God, but it very well may matter to us. Belief is a powerful source of magic, or spiritual beingness, or whatever you care to call it, there is something to belief. When I started this thread, I never intended to question the power of belief, and really only meant to question how believers on both sides seemed to think that the existence of God was predicated on belief.

I don't know if I can answer your questions, my friend. I don't know if anyone but you can answer these questions.

I think all people believe in god. It just depends on the form of their desire. Whatever is highest in peoples' minds, the thing they are most drawn to, is their god.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes I am Jewish and do use G-D out of respect, I consider myself agnostic, I was a total believer at one time in my life, things change and it is a long, long story.

You are correct in that we don't have the answers and maybe never will.

Thank you for replying my friend.