Challenge to Theists: Prove Your God

[Heyo]

This is my second attempt at getting that answer. I tried in From a Deos to Your God but no serious contenders.

So, to all those who like to post and debate about god proves, here is a new challenge:

Assume that any one of the god proofs is correct, the Kalam, the ontological, the moral, whatever argument you find convincing.

Name your argument and try to expand that argument so that you get to a theistic god (any one of those).

I know of no apologist who has even attempted that and I know that no-one did in my first try to get that argument.

If you think that it is impossible, try to prove that.


Let's do something new instead of rehashing centuries old arguments.

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is my second attempt at getting that answer. I tried in From a Deos to Your God but no serious contenders.

So, to all those who like to post and debate about god proves, here is a new challenge:

Assume that any one of the god proofs is correct, the Kalam, the ontological, the moral, whatever argument you find convincing.

Name your argument and try to expand that argument so that you get to a theistic god (any one of those).

I know of no apologist who has even attempted that and I know that no-one did in my first try to get that argument.

If you think that it is impossible, try to prove that.


Let's do something new instead of rehashing centuries old arguments.

The only way you will gain the answer you looking for is to seek within you, God appear on a personal level. Not a physical level

 

[exchemist]

This is my second attempt at getting that answer. I tried in From a Deos to Your God but no serious contenders.

So, to all those who like to post and debate about god proves, here is a new challenge:

Assume that any one of the god proofs is correct, the Kalam, the ontological, the moral, whatever argument you find convincing.

Name your argument and try to expand that argument so that you get to a theistic god (any one of those).

I know of no apologist who has even attempted that and I know that no-one did in my first try to get that argument.

If you think that it is impossible, try to prove that.


Let's do something new instead of rehashing centuries old arguments.

I thought it was by now well established that no proof of such a thing, either for or against a God, is possible.

If there were proofs there would be no faith.

 

[Heyo]

The only way you will gain the answer you looking for is to seek within you, God appear on a personal level. Not a physical level

I think I agree, though you probably wouldn't like it if I formulate it in my words:
"God" is an entirely subjective (and therefore delusional) concept.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think I agree, though you probably wouldn't like it if I formulate it in my words:
"God" is an entirely subjective (and therefore delusional) concept.

I thought atheists/agnostics didn't believe in objective truth?

 

[Heyo]

I thought it was by now well established that no proof of such a thing, either for or against a God, is possible.

If there were proofs there would be no faith.

Well, there are all those attempted proves of a general (deistic) god and we discuss them frequently. Why do apologists stop there? Even if they think their prove is valid and sound, why stay at the deism level in their proves and don't go further - or stay deists?

 

[Heyo]

I thought atheists/agnostics didn't believe in objective truth?

There are no married bachelors, 2+2=4, objectively true.
But, yes, few things are so clear cut. In most cases intersubjective truth is all we can manage. But if there is a concept that only you can see and no-one else, that is basically the definition of delusion.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I thought atheists/agnostics didn't believe in objective truth?

Here's the problem with the statement from @Heyo I previously quoted:

If he doesn't believe in objective truth, then it doesn't make any difference whether God is subjective, as everything is technically subjective.

If on the other hand he believes in objective truth, it won't prove God at all, though I'll continue on thinking that believing in objective truth is the path to starting to believe in God or a god.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There are no married bachelors, 2+2=4, objectively true.
But, yes, few things are so clear cut. In most cases intersubjective truth is all we can manage. But if there is a concept that only you can see and no-one else, that is basically the definition of delusion.

Nobody's doing that, though. We're instead believing in concepts that atheists/agnostics can't see. That doesn't mean nobody else can see it.

 

[Heyo]

Nobody's doing that, though. We're instead believing in concepts that atheists/agnostics can't see. That doesn't mean nobody else can see it.

If I ask you and an other believer of your faith about your images about your (allegedly common) god, what do you think how many question would I have to ask before I got a contradictory answer? There is no such thing as a common concept of god that more than a handful of people share after 20 questions.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If I ask you and an other believer of your faith about your images about your (allegedly common) god, what do you think how many question would I have to ask before I got a contradictory answer? There is no such thing as a common concept of god that more than a handful of people share after 20 questions.

Here: Continuum fallacy - RationalWiki

 

[exchemist]

I think I agree, though you probably wouldn't like it if I formulate it in my words:
"God" is an entirely subjective (and therefore delusional) concept.

Not everything subjective is necessarily delusional, surely?

 

[exchemist]

Well, there are all those attempted proves of a general (deistic) god and we discuss them frequently. Why do apologists stop there? Even if they think their prove is valid and sound, why stay at the deism level in their proves and don't go further - or stay deists?

Because religious beliefs have nothing to do with proofs, presumably.

 

[Heyo]

Not everything subjective is necessarily delusional, surely?

That is right. For a subjective concept to be delusional it must also be defended against contrary evidence.

 

[Heyo]

Because religious beliefs have nothing to do with proofs, presumably.

And yet, the Kalam and the five arguments by Aquinas and other proves do exist (and are frequently brought up on RF). So there seems to be some urge in theists to prove god - but only ever a deist god. Why is that?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

And yet, the Kalam and the five arguments by Aquinas and other proves do exist (and are frequently brought up on RF). So there seems to be some urge in theists to prove god - but only ever a deist god. Why is that?

I think some times we do try to post proofs. Just taking what I've posted in the last month, I posted many things to consider across threads. Some interesting, some more intent at proving. One of my better pieces, which convinces me, is that to the best of my knowledge, and I do need to study more as well, my faith is actually more accurate on a cosmological scale than some other faiths. So it's something to discuss. Whether it gets eye rolls instead, I can't be sure. But the accuracy seems impressive.

A second subject I brought up wasn't to prove, it was just a subject of "hey, that's interesting" that allows leeway to reject it. I posted the Jesus tree my hometown has, in a Journal post. This doesn't prove Jesus. All it proves is that my hometown has a culture of weird things. That's the only thing I set out to prove. But still, to an open mind, I believe it does make one think.

The third thing I've posted is an argument I've made that needs refinement, but may end up solid with more thinking. I'm working on it. It's how the bulk of spiritual stories from people claiming they've experienced things, creates an abductive reasoning argument in favor of spiritual experiences being valid.

 

[exchemist]

And yet, the Kalam and the five arguments by Aquinas and other proves do exist (and are frequently brought up on RF). So there seems to be some urge in theists to prove god - but only ever a deist god. Why is that?

There are a lot of misguided or poorly informed people on the internet.

 

[Danielle Dark]

I know of no apologist who has even attempted that

Have you been living under a rock? If you just Google "proof of Christianity," "proof of Islam," etc., you'd find thousands of examples of what you're looking for.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think I agree, though you probably wouldn't like it if I formulate it in my words:
"God" is an entirely subjective (and therefore delusional) concept.

You are fully free to have your opinion or understand of God

 

[exchemist]

Have you been living under a rock? If you just Google "proof of Christianity," "proof of Islam," etc., you'd find thousands of examples of what you're looking for.

I think what the thread is aiming at is the distinction between deism and theism.