Challenge to Theists: Prove Your God

[Brian2]

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.

God is not entirely subjective but the real evidence comes subjectively for us as individuals usually. Even when some people have experiences that are objective the evidence that this offers for a God speaking to them is subjective.
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[stvdv]

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 just read today the below thought of the day, given by Sai Baba. Gives enough clarity about your challenge

Peace is of the nature of Atma. Atma is imperishable. It doesn’t die, like the body and mind. It is universal, subtle; its very nature is knowledge. So, peace also partakes of these characteristics. Knowledge of Atma destroys illusion, doubt, and sorrow. Hence, knowledge of Atma confers the steadiest peace and, with it, holiness and happiness. The Atma is not the object of knowledge; it is the very source and spring of knowledge. Spiritual wisdom (jnana) is that which shows the way to the ripening, fruition, freedom, immortality, eternal happiness, and eternal peace. Those who are carried away by the vagaries of the senses cannot attain the Atma. Brahman is the one, ever Unchanging in this changing world. The Atma is untarnished by external transformations, changes, or modifications. The glory of the body is not the Atma; Atma is, really speaking, indescribable and inexpressible. It is neither this nor that. It can be said to be only It, Atma, Brahman!

 

[PureX]

God is the conceptual summation of a whole array of phenomenological human experience.

Weather is the conceptual summation of a whole array of phenomenological human experience.

We humans define reality as the phenomena that we experience. Therefor God and weather are both 'real' by the way we define and understand reality.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

Leave out the bit in brackets, and most believers and non believers alike would probably concede your point. However, all of life is an entirely subjective experience; there is quite simply no other experience or understanding available to us. Does this mean all conscious beings are deluded?

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

These two have a cousin, whose name is theosophy; she may hold the key to the doors of perception.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Please post a link to one that fits the required criteria and convinces you.

 

[dybmh]

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

the only way?

Are you sure about that?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Ever seen a thunderstorm? There you go. I don't much know which "argument type" it'd be, and even if you don't see the storm as Thor, that is what we worship as Thor. Not for any scripture, or because a goði told me so, but because that is his name; "The Thunderer".

 

[Spirit of Light]

the only way?

Are you sure about that?

In my understanding yes, but I do not hold the full truth, my answer was given only from my understanding

 

[dybmh]

In my understanding yes, but I do not hold the full truth, my answer was given only from my understanding

Why do you think it's the only way?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why do you think it's the only way?

Because my understanding is that God awakens from within each person, so our understanding of God will be different from others

 

[Nakosis]

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

To me, this just reinforces the idea that God is a product of the subconscious.
While this personal God can be psychology beneficial, there is no guarantee it has any relationship to an actual God, if one exists.

 

[dybmh]

Because my understanding is that God awakens from within each person, so our understanding of God will be different from others

I would be interested in the reasons that contribute to this understanding if you choose to share them.

 

[Spirit of Light]

To me, this just reinforces the idea that God is a product of the subconscious.
While this personal God can be psychology beneficial, there is no guarantee it has any relationship to an actual God, if one exists.

The reason for me saying this is that each person would have to end the ego/lower self to remove the vail to see God from within

@dybmh i think I might answer your question here too

 

[1213]

Prove Your God

God is the creator of this world -> created things exist -> creator must exist.

I don't think you like that so here is another:

God is love according to the Bible -> I know love -> love exists.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

...God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

 

[Heyo]

God is the creator of this world -> created things exist -> creator must exist.

That was the premise I granted (for the sake of argument). What I requested was to go beyond that.

I don't think you like that so here is another:

God is love according to the Bible -> I know love -> love exists.

And then there were two ...

We now have a creator god and a love god, how many gods does your pantheon have?

 

[Heyo]

Leave out the bit in brackets, and most believers and non believers alike would probably concede your point. However, all of life is an entirely subjective experience; there is quite simply no other experience or understanding available to us. Does this mean all conscious beings are deluded?

I was already corrected about that "delusional" part. A god belief is only delusional if a believer keeps on believing after learning that his subjective experience isn't shared by others.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That was the premise I granted (for the sake of argument). What I requested was to go beyond that.

And then there were two ...

We now have a creator god and a love god, how many gods does your pantheon have?

A God can have many attributes and be understood in different ways, example Allah’s 99 names are ways Allah is experienced ( conscious thoughts understanding)

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Huh?

Argument 1: The God of the Bible is prescient, accurate, specific.

Argument 2: I experience the God of the Bible and no one can debate my inner experience with accuracy but me.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I was already corrected about that "delusional" part. A god belief is only delusional if a believer keeps on believing after learning that his subjective experience isn't shared by others.

So Pythagoras was deluded when he insisted that the world was round, two centuries before anyone else shared his perspective?