-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The myriad proofs for the exsitence of God
- Thread starter cottage
- Start date
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
OK, sorry I missed this earlier.
However hidden in that answer IS a partial definition of god. To wit: That god has a religious aspect. Further such religious aspects are well enough defined to allow you to distinguish between various feet that might be said to be god. So you are dismissive of her claim that her left foot is god.
On what basis do you make that judgment? And having made it does that not require you to have some idea of what god is? An idea well enough defined to decide that her left foot ain't god UNLESS she can show some "religious aspect"?
[FONT="]Greetings Cottage. There is one, but it involves a totally different approach from what has been discussed so far in this thread. Instead of trying to get logical arguments from individuals that you can argue against this approach calls for you to find out about God for yourself. This can be done by following the guidance and perennial knowledge from the religion founders to look within. Check these out taken from "Essential Spirituality" by Roger Walsh: [/FONT]
- [FONT="]The kingdom of heaven is within you. (Jesus, Christianity)[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Those who know themselves know their Lord. (Mohammad, Islam)[/FONT]
- [FONT="]He is in all, and all is in Him. (Judaism)[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Those who know completely their own nature, know heaven. (Mencius, Confucianism)[/FONT]
- [FONT="]In the depths of the soul, one sees the Divine, the One. (The Chinese Book of Changes)[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Atman [individual consciousness] and Brahman [universal consciousness] are one. (Hinduism)[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Look within, you are the Buddha. (Buddhism)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Regards,[/FONT]
[FONT="]a..1[/FONT]
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
"Within me" at the moment is some lasagna and 1/2 bottle of a nice Chianti.
That what you mean?
That what you mean?
ha ha. Not exactly, eating broken glass (half a bottle) can be dangerous!"Within me" at the moment is some lasagna and 1/2 bottle of a nice Chianti.
That what you mean?
Last edited:
christian
elected member
_______________________
you said>>>but this proof can only be understood in terms faith, which is the keystone of the belief
*no. Faith IS the proof. here's the definition of faith (not belief) which is given when you accept the Lord. """Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."""
*it is the "SELF-evident" proof. it's only proof to the one who has faith. It can't be passed on or validated by anyone or anything other than the individual>>>self. As I said in the previous post, it's not the self evident evidence you were requiring. but it is the Only answer that can be given....nothing else will prove God. Taking God's existence and creatorship as a premise....the whole of creation is proof, but unless you have this faith, it isn't proof to you.
____________________________________
you said>>> In other words a double dose of faith. Faith upon faith!
*you must have heard the saying "Iknow that I know" ? That's what is being said here, Faith upon Faith. Faith proving Faith.
____________________________________
you said>>>Now it really makes no sense to me when you say God quells proof of himself in those who don't have the faith
Rom 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Rom 11:7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."
*He most certainly does quell (not completely quench).....
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
_____________________________
____________________________
you said>>>and unbelievers cannot suffer sanctions inflicted on then by a mere concept.
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
*Why?
Rom 9:22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--
____________________________
you said>>>After all, you cannot believe in what cannot be believed!
*You are correct.
____________________________
*God chooses to save whom He chooses, according to His own councils. He hardens and blinds whom He chooses. He uses some for examples to others. He afflicts those He loves. He turns us over to our sins so we can see them.....
--Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
--Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
--Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
this last isn't picking out homosexuals...it was just the first thing that came to me as being a good example of how God first blinds and hardens, then turns sinners (me included here) over to our sins. Other verses indicate that He does this so we can see our sin...conviction.
_____________________
most of the above is responding to your last (quoted) above. Wasn't my intention to get this deep. To return to the original reason i responded to you thread starter about evidence. It is simply that most people (even true born again Christians) don't know the meaning of the faith they do or don't have. I can tell you from 25 yrs experience that the "assurance" is dead real and cannot be denied. that is it's essence and function. and it is feelable, sensible to the mind and complete (without doubt whatsoever). Most Christians just say "I just know it", or "I just know that I know".
And that is all the hard evidence that is available. And that evidence cannot be acquired unless a person in there deepest inner man...desires God. And it is applicable only to the person who has it, no one else.
i hope that answers your query in a sort of way. there is no evidence of God but faith.
dorsk188
One-Eyed in Blindsville
Exactly. If Willamena wants to define God as her toe (without any further claims), then fine. I believe in her God (but I will continue to think of and refer to it as her toe, thank you very much). Some people define God as energy, nature, the Universe itself, and so on. All of those things I believe in, even if I don't think it's relevant to call them "God".
Depening on how "God" is defined, I may believe in it. That's why I want to know what someone means when they say God, before we start debating his/her/its existence.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
"knowledge" needs to be explained?
If you believe in life after death, my post is self-explanatory.
If you don't believe in life after death....
But if we have defined "paper clip," we can presume to judge. We don't "have that information" by hearing it from others. All we have, then, is their information (or what passes for it).
I can see we need to start from the beginning. First of all have a quick look at the opening page of this thread. This was a response to all the supposed proofs for God, and hence the title. As the given proofs arent convincing (to me), I asked whether there exists a proof that would make all the others irrelevant. Someone asked how Im defining God, an odd thing to say to someone whos asking the same thing! Anyway, there are many notions of God, from those described by the main religions to the basic idea of an uncluttered First Cause (see post 9). It isnt for me to pick one of these and then impose it upon a believer. The important point I must make here is that the import of the various proofs defines the object of the belief, in all cases this has been belief in a causal agent that it has done certain things and/or a belief that it will do certain things in the future. That is not my definition but a very obvious summation of what is said and claimed by the believers.
You say Gods religious aspect is a partial definition. It may be, but the concept 'God' doesn't necessarily have a religious aspect, as simply understanding a concept does not imply or demand belief in the object. But what I will state categorically is that belief in the object is what makes it religious. So if a believers left foot is synonymous with God then that is an evident religious relationship. And on those terms I will treat it no differently to any other claim to a deity.
And now we need to go back to the beginning again. I asked for one compelling proof. This was a simple invitation, and I reasonably asked in what way does your belief in God (left foot?) have greater credence than all the others that weve been reading on the Forum? Instead of being offered arguments or evidence I received responses such define God and the rather idiotic what am I to prove? In the first example the definition is plainly equal to the believers proof, and in the second example the answer was in the original question. The evasiveness and putting up of obstacles simply contributes to my scepticism.
Paperclips exist, I know exactly what is meant by 'paperclip'. But I don't know what you mean by God. I know of more than a dozen common discriptions of God, and that list isn't exhaustive. Just say what you mean when you use the word 'God'. It isn't a trick question.
In a sense it does, but only by showing that an argument from faith is no argument at all. Anyone from any religion can make the same argument from faith, which means there is no distinction to be drawn between them. So faith isn't proof by any defintion.
But all faiths make appeals to reason, and I've already mentioned the particular objection I have to the notion of an all-sufficient Being who tests his creation, craves adoration and glorification, and who angers and punishes. The response I received to this point was wholly unsatisfactory. You replied with what was basically an argument from ignorance, which amounted to saying it's not for us to say what God must do. This is crucial because here was an opportunity to establish a proof by demonstrating why how these things things are necessary, and therefore not irrational.
When we say we're looking for proof that the claims are true, we're not expecting to see an image, an awesome manifestation, or water turned into wine, what we're actually asking for is for is evidence of reason. No matter how strong your faith, if God is the Supreme Being, the sum of all possible attributes, you cannot believe that he has needs that are satisfied by his creation, nor can you believe that his creation can confound his will - and yet that is exactly what you have described! So you must suspend reason and call it 'faith', because as mentioned earlier you can't believe what you can't believe.
It can't be imposed upon anyone, anyway.
None of us knows what the other means by "paperclip" --at all. We only know it because we have defined it. When someone says "paperclip," we draw on that definition. Nothing else.
You can listen to every description of God known to man, but unless one of them strikes a chord with the definition you hold, it's blue-in-the-face time.
"God" cannot be said to be or not be, to have or not have, to exist or not exist, so in fact it is more a trick question than you know. If it helps, I took at stab at describing it last month.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1696230-post40.html
You are still evading the question. And I'm astonished at the way are still telling me what my response will be before I've heard your answer! This is simply an attempting to preempt any argument by coming up with feeble excuses. And I'm not asking you whether God exists. I asked you what you mean by God, what is your understanding or beliefs?
*psst* It's not always about you.
It was an honest answer. Take from it what you will (and have
).*psst* It's not always about you.
And yet it in this context is self-evidently was!
Really, you can't pretend to be making a general point when you refuse to answer my questions. :no:
christian
elected member
you said>>>>This is crucial because here was an opportunity to establish a proof by demonstrating why how these things things are necessary, and therefore not irrational
_______________________
thanks for responding to a very long post. I think you have summed up your position well. Maybe I haven't. My post was more of an aside, knowing that it wasn't "exactly" how you wanted people to respond. So it really doesn't deal with any real prerequisites of your original thread starter.
In far to tedious and probably unclear manner I simply wanted to say two things. The first being that there is no proof (...for you), though there is proof for me. And secondly that that proof is the faith itself. As I have it and you don't (I'm assuming....correct me if I'm wrong)....it follows that I can't take the opportunity to prove God anything to you.
I followed with some verses to amplify and qualify my two statements. I also addressed (with verse and comment) some of your later posts that pertain to the sovereignty, foreknowledge, control, preordainment, and hidden purposes of God.
As an aside it got to be rather verbose. My apologies. But summed up...
yes there is proof....faith is the actual evidence. No, there isn't any proof (for you) as it's not verifiable by any without faith. Yes God hides his stuff because salvation is by faith (therefore excluding universal, public evidence). Yes God decides who He saves according to His own council. Yes, He imposes "blinders" on those He chooses not to save, or who are pre-salvation.
I hope this clarifies some of my previous muddled responses somewhat.
_______________________
thanks for responding to a very long post. I think you have summed up your position well. Maybe I haven't. My post was more of an aside, knowing that it wasn't "exactly" how you wanted people to respond. So it really doesn't deal with any real prerequisites of your original thread starter.
In far to tedious and probably unclear manner I simply wanted to say two things. The first being that there is no proof (...for you), though there is proof for me. And secondly that that proof is the faith itself. As I have it and you don't (I'm assuming....correct me if I'm wrong)....it follows that I can't take the opportunity to prove God anything to you.
I followed with some verses to amplify and qualify my two statements. I also addressed (with verse and comment) some of your later posts that pertain to the sovereignty, foreknowledge, control, preordainment, and hidden purposes of God.
As an aside it got to be rather verbose. My apologies. But summed up...
yes there is proof....faith is the actual evidence. No, there isn't any proof (for you) as it's not verifiable by any without faith. Yes God hides his stuff because salvation is by faith (therefore excluding universal, public evidence). Yes God decides who He saves according to His own council. Yes, He imposes "blinders" on those He chooses not to save, or who are pre-salvation.
I hope this clarifies some of my previous muddled responses somewhat.
christian
elected member
i'm pretty sure I'm screwing this thread organisation up severely. but i'll press on.
you also said>> So you must suspend reason and call it 'faith', because as mentioned earlier you can't believe what you can't believe.
True. And also the reciprocal is true. You can't disbelieve what you believe.
Premise>>>God really does exist and the bible was "authored" by Him. If so, then in the bible you will find the verses I've included in these posts. And, according to the premise....Faith is given and is immutable. It can't be nullified or ignored. It is a spiritual "proof" of God etc. And, no doubt those who have this faith and communicate with God believe in God. Irrevocably.
if the premise is true....Faith is the Only proof. And those who "suffer" from it (bit of a joke there...) actually have the undubitable proof you are asking for. And it can't be given, but it is the proof.
Reason is not forsaken here...if God does indeed exist and faith is the proof. Just the opposite. In either case....it's impossible to unbelieve what you believe. It would be irrational to deny what you believe as true. Don't you think?
It seems irrational to you because once you remove yourself from the premise, you believe that the premise is not true because of what you believe....you won't believe anything (within reason) unless it is proven. You are the Thomas of the bible. Notice that Christ commanded Thomas to stop doubting and believe. Thomas didn't just decide to obey Christ all of a sudden and start believing. As you have said and I have agreed....not possible. God made him believe. He gave Him faith. Which is again....the evidence of things unseen. Then Thomas, once He had the evidence (the proof you also require) ...he believed.
Ok...drop the premise and you have your rationality that is opposed to a faulty God, therefore you actually that believe the God of the Bible (and in fact just any such real creator) couldn't exist. Or at least you hope He doesn't, given your opinion of Him as witnessed by your cognitive senses, historical accounts and biblical accounts. Very rational. You would be a nutbar if you believed in God without the requisite faith (evidence) to compell you to. And I am unable to reject the proof of faith. If I attempted it, I would consider myself a nutbar as well.
....i've consumed far to much e-paper again. my apologies. but i'll let it stand as is
what is a frubal btw?
you also said>> So you must suspend reason and call it 'faith', because as mentioned earlier you can't believe what you can't believe.
True. And also the reciprocal is true. You can't disbelieve what you believe.
Premise>>>God really does exist and the bible was "authored" by Him. If so, then in the bible you will find the verses I've included in these posts. And, according to the premise....Faith is given and is immutable. It can't be nullified or ignored. It is a spiritual "proof" of God etc. And, no doubt those who have this faith and communicate with God believe in God. Irrevocably.
if the premise is true....Faith is the Only proof. And those who "suffer" from it (bit of a joke there...) actually have the undubitable proof you are asking for. And it can't be given, but it is the proof.
Reason is not forsaken here...if God does indeed exist and faith is the proof. Just the opposite. In either case....it's impossible to unbelieve what you believe. It would be irrational to deny what you believe as true. Don't you think?
It seems irrational to you because once you remove yourself from the premise, you believe that the premise is not true because of what you believe....you won't believe anything (within reason) unless it is proven. You are the Thomas of the bible. Notice that Christ commanded Thomas to stop doubting and believe. Thomas didn't just decide to obey Christ all of a sudden and start believing. As you have said and I have agreed....not possible. God made him believe. He gave Him faith. Which is again....the evidence of things unseen. Then Thomas, once He had the evidence (the proof you also require) ...he believed.
Ok...drop the premise and you have your rationality that is opposed to a faulty God, therefore you actually that believe the God of the Bible (and in fact just any such real creator) couldn't exist. Or at least you hope He doesn't, given your opinion of Him as witnessed by your cognitive senses, historical accounts and biblical accounts. Very rational. You would be a nutbar if you believed in God without the requisite faith (evidence) to compell you to. And I am unable to reject the proof of faith. If I attempted it, I would consider myself a nutbar as well.
....i've consumed far to much e-paper again. my apologies. but i'll let it stand as is
what is a frubal btw?
Last edited:
Actually I didn't think it was at all muddled. You are saying the fact that you have faith is a proof - all the proof that you need - which answers not to any reasoning outside the faith, but only to what is held to be true within it. On this account it would be plainly illogical to say 'God saves' is false, quite regardless of whether God's existence has been demonstrated.
It does not of course follow that such a faith system of internal truths corresponds with what is certain and true, and we see contradictions in both logic and experience. But I respect your right to believe as you do.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I think we have reached a point where consequences could be considered.
How about a little 'wager'?
The bet is simple .....what if there is God?
He would be the most 'almighty' of all.
He will most likely have hierarchy set in place.
You will deal with it accordingly.
If there is no god, and life after death remains possible....
there would be chaos....no one in charge.
If there is no life after death.....the box...the grave....eternal darkness.
So proving the existence would be important for some, and a complete waste of time for others.
The consequences will still be there, waiting.
How about a little 'wager'?
The bet is simple .....what if there is God?
He would be the most 'almighty' of all.
He will most likely have hierarchy set in place.
You will deal with it accordingly.
If there is no god, and life after death remains possible....
there would be chaos....no one in charge.
If there is no life after death.....the box...the grave....eternal darkness.
So proving the existence would be important for some, and a complete waste of time for others.
The consequences will still be there, waiting.