The myriad proofs for the exsitence of God

[Willamena]

I've been a devoted theist, so it's not as though the concept of "God" is alien to me. But even so, I know my old view of God are not necessarily anyone else's, and would not ascribe them to anyone. But you're creating a situation where no atheist can ever have a conversation about God.

If an atheist says: "What do you mean when you say God?", you accuse him of not being able to understand what God is because he doesn't believe in one.
If an atheist says: "God doesn't exist because X, Y, and Z", you would accuse him of creating strawmen, or misrepresenting your view of God, or again not understanding God. (You'd be very justified in saying that, in my opinion).

That's why I, and many atheists, ask you to define what you believe. If atheists just can't understand because we don't believe, then you are either unable or unwilling to describe it, or clearly evading any chance of criticism. And if that's your intent, then no one is forcing you to post in a religious debate forum.

I "accuse" no one --there is nothing to be accused of. My argument is simply an observation that the person who hasn't defined "God" (formed his own image of God) is in no position to judge other's images of God. Similarly, the person who has defined "God" (be they atheist or theist) has some basis from which to judge.

That's all I wanted to say, and now I've said it (100 times) and I'm done.

 

[dorsk188]

I "accuse" no one --there is nothing to be accused of. My argument is simply an observation that the person who hasn't defined "God" (formed his own image of God) is in no position to judge other's images of God. Similarly, the person who has defined "God" (be they atheist or theist) has some basis from which to judge.

That's all I wanted to say, and now I've said it (100 times) and I'm done.

Well, I disagree. Good evening.

 

[McBell]

I "accuse" no one --there is nothing to be accused of. My argument is simply an observation that the person who hasn't defined "God" (formed his own image of God) is in no position to judge other's images of God. Similarly, the person who has defined "God" (be they atheist or theist) has some basis from which to judge.

That's all I wanted to say, and now I've said it (100 times) and I'm done.

wow.
All that just to get out of describing your "god"?

 

[christian]

if there is one, utterly compelling and self-evident proof for the existence of God it.

yes, there is. it's not the one you were looking for though. the above section of your post is what caught my eye. especially the term "self-evident". i haven't read the rest of this thread because my response is actually going to be considered an aside as it doesn't address what i think it is that your require as a valid response.

first of all i should say that God requires that we return to Him by faith and faith alone. i think this is the case because by lack of trust and belief adam and eve failed His only test. they basically doubted Him. to reverse this with believing Him would be harmonious with how God is dealing with mankind at a more real and spiritual level (as versus the mosaic law and all the archtypes in the old testament that are pointers or shadows of real, inner truths).

that being said and taken as a premise by yourself (for the moment) it follows that concrete, verifiable proof of His existence may not be His intention at all. if it were, then faith goes out the window. especially if we are temporarily accepting the premise that He exists and got really ticked off when He wasn't believed). so, lack of this kind of hard evidence is a prerequisite.

but, He can't just leave it there or we wouldn't have a clue as to His existence...which would then toss the whole matter back into the garbage once again (faith included). so He would necessarily have some way of presenting Himself and His case, albeit in a stealthed manner, so that we all would have some sort of compulsion to look deeper into the shadow that is God.

Hopefully this makes some kind of sense to you. i realise that operating under a premise while trying to preserve a personal proper perspective can be difficult at best. so, if all of the above rings true enough as you take the perspective of what you know to be what the bible says and what Christians jointly believe....then there isn't supposed to be tangible evidence but there must be some kind of way to communicate or search or become aware of the things of God. Agreed? if so...read on.

here's the nut. taking the probability of a "line" of connection to a God that doesn't want to prove Himself as a valid postulate, then all that is left is to discover the nature and mechanics of this line. how to do this? i would start with those who say they have found it. and that would have to be Christians. at least we'll suppose that if the line of communication is there, then at least some Christians have "connected". i am one such person. and that's why i'm posting. i have the proof you are requesting proof of.

unfortunately, if you refer to the first part of this rambling...God doesn't make this proof transferable as it would toss everything He's working for in the trash again. if i could prove to you that i have "one, utterly compelling and self-evident proof for the existence of God" then you would have it in the blink of an eye. as would billions of others.

so, i can't prove it to you based on the substance of my own immutable proof....faith. to wind this up and include God's opinion on the whole matter i'll include some short scriptures. it doesn't prove anything except to 1. point out the nature of the "self evident" proof that God intends and also 2. why it is that you don't have it and 3. why it, and any proof of God is purposely quelled to those who don't have faith.

i'll have to add these references tomorrow as my bed is calling me softly but persistently...there won't be many, and i'll make them short


_______________________________________________

 

[cottage]

yes, there is. it's not the one you were looking for though. the above section of your post is what caught my eye. especially the term "self-evident". i haven't read the rest of this thread because my response is actually going to be considered an aside as it doesn't address what i think it is that your require as a valid response.

first of all i should say that God requires that we return to Him by faith and faith alone. i think this is the case because by lack of trust and belief adam and eve failed His only test. they basically doubted Him. to reverse this with believing Him would be harmonious with how God is dealing with mankind at a more real and spiritual level (as versus the mosaic law and all the archtypes in the old testament that are pointers or shadows of real, inner truths).

that being said and taken as a premise by yourself (for the moment) it follows that concrete, verifiable proof of His existence may not be His intention at all. if it were, then faith goes out the window. especially if we are temporarily accepting the premise that He exists and got really ticked off when He wasn't believed). so, lack of this kind of hard evidence is a prerequisite.

but, He can't just leave it there or we wouldn't have a clue as to His existence...which would then toss the whole matter back into the garbage once again (faith included). so He would necessarily have some way of presenting Himself and His case, albeit in a stealthed manner, so that we all would have some sort of compulsion to look deeper into the shadow that is God.

Hopefully this makes some kind of sense to you. i realise that operating under a premise while trying to preserve a personal proper perspective can be difficult at best. so, if all of the above rings true enough as you take the perspective of what you know to be what the bible says and what Christians jointly believe....then there isn't supposed to be tangible evidence but there must be some kind of way to communicate or search or become aware of the things of God. Agreed? if so...read on.

here's the nut. taking the probability of a "line" of connection to a God that doesn't want to prove Himself as a valid postulate, then all that is left is to discover the nature and mechanics of this line. how to do this? i would start with those who say they have found it. and that would have to be Christians. at least we'll suppose that if the line of communication is there, then at least some Christians have "connected". i am one such person. and that's why i'm posting. i have the proof you are requesting proof of.

unfortunately, if you refer to the first part of this rambling...God doesn't make this proof transferable as it would toss everything He's working for in the trash again. if i could prove to you that i have "one, utterly compelling and self-evident proof for the existence of God" then you would have it in the blink of an eye. as would billions of others.

so, i can't prove it to you based on the substance of my own immutable proof....faith. to wind this up and include God's opinion on the whole matter i'll include some short scriptures. it doesn't prove anything except to 1. point out the nature of the "self evident" proof that God intends and also 2. why it is that you don't have it and 3. why it, and any proof of God is purposely quelled to those who don't have faith.

i'll have to add these references tomorrow as my bed is calling me softly but persistently...there won't be many, and i'll make them short


_______________________________________________

Thank you for that. If I read you right you are saying that there is indubitable proof, but this proof can only be understood in terms faith, which is the keystone of the belief. And of course I must agree that on those terms any self-evident proof contradicts the necessity for faith.

However I would say that despite this 'true for me' belief as faith, there needs to be an element of reason. In your shoes, for example, I would have to ask why there needs to be faith at all? An all-sufficient, creator Being, if that is what God is, surely doesn't need to test his creation or crave adoration. It would seem to me that in order to accept the irrational aspects, one needs to have faith that the faith held is true in spite of anything to the contrary. In other words a double dose of faith. Faith upon faith! And I don't see how the suspension of reason could ever be justified on that basis.

Now it really makes no sense to me when you say God quells proof of himself in those who don't have the faith. By definition their is no gain or benefit that God can derive from such a ploy, and unbelievers cannot suffer sanctions inflicted on then by a mere concept. So reason has its place, whatever the religion or belief. After all, you cannot believe in what cannot be believed!

 

[Willamena]

All that just to get out of describing your "god"?

No, all that to discuss my point.

 

[Thief]

Let me try...again.

He is bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.
I call Him .....the Almighty.

 

[Willamena]

Let me try...again.

He is bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.
I call Him .....the Almighty.

He is my little toe (on the left foot, not the right).

 

[Thief]

You can do better than that.

 

[cottage]

I've been a devoted theist, so it's not as though the concept of "God" is alien to me. But even so, I know my old view of God are not necessarily anyone else's, and would not ascribe them to anyone. But you're creating a situation where no atheist can ever have a conversation about God.

If an atheist says: "What do you mean when you say God?", you accuse him of not being able to understand what God is because he doesn't believe in one.
If an atheist says: "God doesn't exist because X, Y, and Z", you would accuse him of creating strawmen, or misrepresenting your view of God, or again not understanding God. (You'd be very justified in saying that, in my opinion).

That's why I, and many atheists, ask you to define what you believe. If atheists just can't understand because we don't believe, then you are either unable or unwilling to describe it, or clearly evading any chance of criticism. And if that's your intent, then no one is forcing you to post in a religious debate forum.

Willamena: I "accuse" no one --there is nothing to be accused of. My argument is simply an observation that the person who hasn't defined "God" (formed his own image of God) is in no position to judge other's images of God. Similarly, the person who has defined "God" (be they atheist or theist) has some basis from which to judge.

I think dorsk has summed it up rather well. And your response is incoherent. If someone was asked to describe a ghost that was seen, that person wouldn't insist that the questioner defines the thing that the witness saw! 'Oh I'm sorry but I can't tell you about the apparition that I saw unless you first define what a ghost is.' Really!

A friend once said that if I dug myself into a hole I should stop digging and climb out with my credibility intact. Good advice, that was. And it would have worked for you.

 

[Willamena]

your response is incoherent.

That's probably because it isn't responding to what he said. His was a fine post, but I wanted to keep to the topic of the point I was making.

 

[Willamena]

You can do better than that.

Not terribly (except, of course, by pointing at other things).

*points at Thief*

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I see what Willa is saying (in her coy way). It is actually a serious argument that deserves some attention. Her question really is (and this takes me back +40 yrs to OM PK class) the question: “What is knowledge and how do you know?”

Here is the example from that class as I remember it these long decades passed. The Prof held up a paper clip and announced, “This is a paper clip. Does anyone disagree?” No one did.

He them held up a weird shaped piece of metal about 6 six inches long with 2 holes thru it and another on bored into it with machine threads on the inside. He announced, “This is the connector for the shift control cable on my 59 VW. It fits on the transmission case and allows me to shift gears. Does anyone disagree?’

No one did. He then asked, “Why not? Why do you accept the paper clip and this thing as both being what I say they are?”

Obviously because we all “know” what a paper clip is but none of us had the slightest idea what the metal thing was. So we took his word for it. He then picked up his transmission gizmo and announced, “Actually it is no such thing. It is a piece of scrap metal I bored some holes in. It has no function whatever and is unique. Now, who believes THAT?”

So what IS knowledge? And how do you know it when you see it?

Or Willa’s point. Unless you know what god is how do you "know" X is NOT god?

 

[Thief]

That didn't work at all.
Your professor was demonstrating 'trust'.
It is quite human to accept at face value what the next guy tells you.
If we go about demanding proof at every occasion, we would raise from our beds declaring.....
'no it ain't'... and go to bed that night, still doing so....

This discussion has nothing to do with that technique.
My previous post was a simple straight forward description of God.

If God is not bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced...then He is not God.

 

[cottage]

Or Willa’s point. Unless you know what god is how do you "know" X is NOT god?

That is exactly the point. We don't! We cannot presume to know what 'God' is, and we cannot discuss whether it might be, until we hear the claim.

Once we have the information, ie what is said to be God's essence, what it is said he has supposedly done and what he will supposedly do, then we can examine the propositions and ask is the belief rationally defensible, and are the propositions self-contradictory?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

That is exactly the point. We don't! We cannot presume to know what 'God' is, and we cannot discuss whether it might be, until we hear the claim.

Once we have the information, ie what is said to be God's essence, what it is said he has supposedly done and what he will supposedly do, then we can examine the propositions and ask is the belief rationally defensible, and are the propositions self-contradictory?

How do you "know" what his metal thing IS? You either take his word for it or you KNOW it is not what he said it is. But how do you know it is NOT unless you know something about what he claimed it is? If you are not familiar with VW transmissions you have no way of challenging his assertion.

If Willa says her left foot IS god you either take her word for it OR you have some idea of what "god" is and based on that "knowledge" know that her left foot ain't god. It is a subtle point that theists like Thief, so mired in their faith, quite miss. It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with what is knowledge. We all carry around all kinds of information. But what in that mass of data is "knowledge" and what is just common understanding. (Like the paper clip.) And how do you tell the difference?

If we all agree that Willa's left foot ain't god how did we make that determination? UNLESS we have some idea what "god" is and that idea precludes god being her left foot.

 

[Thief]

My post was a simple straight forward description.
It speaks that some things are greater, and some things are less.

So....let's say (for the moment) God does exist...but no one has ever been in His presence.
We can still be sure....He is bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.....or He is not God.

Now if you're comfortable comparing the Almighty, to Willimena's left toe....
you go right ahead.

I happen to think God has a sense of humor. Maybe He'll think you're funny.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"So....let's say (for the moment) God does exist...but no one has ever been in His presence.
We can still be sure....He is bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.....or He is not God."

And how do you "know" that UNLESS you have made some determination of what god is? And by what process did you arrive at that determination?

 

[cottage]

How do you "know" what his metal thing IS? You either take his word for it or you KNOW it is not what he said it is. But how do you know it is NOT unless you know something about what he claimed it is? If you are not familiar with VW transmissions you have no way of challenging his assertion.

If Willa says her left foot IS god you either take her word for it OR you have some idea of what "god" is and based on that "knowledge" know that her left foot ain't god. It is a subtle point that theists like Thief, so mired in their faith, quite miss. It has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with what is knowledge. We all carry around all kinds of information. But what in that mass of data is "knowledge" and what is just common understanding. (Like the paper clip.) And how do you tell the difference?

If we all agree that Willa's left foot ain't god how did we make that determination? UNLESS we have some idea what "god" is and that idea precludes god being her left foot.

I don't see why we should all agree that the left foot example isn't God. For the purposes of the argument 'God' will be whatever the believers say it is. (I addressed this point in more fully in post 109)

 

[Thief]

"So....let's say (for the moment) God does exist...but no one has ever been in His presence.
We can still be sure....He is bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent, and greatly experienced.....or He is not God."

And how do you "know" that UNLESS you have made some determination of what god is? And by what process did you arrive at that determination?

There are 'greater and lesser' in this life.
I believe in life after death.
There are 'greater and lesser' in the next life.