Challenge to Theists: Prove Your God

[firedragon]

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.

What is your definition of proof? What is your epistemology?

 

[Heyo]

What is your definition of proof? What is your epistemology?

Since I have already accepted the classical god proofs (for sake of argument), the standard is already low but we shouldn't go lower than that. Keeping to the formal constraints of the syllogism would be nice decorum but isn't required.
Just name the argument you are basing on and fire away.

 

[firedragon]

Since I have already accepted the classical god proofs (for sake of argument), the standard is already low but we shouldn't go lower than that. Keeping to the formal constraints of the syllogism would be nice decorum but isn't required.
Just name the argument you are basing on and fire away.

Haha. Alright alright I understand what you say. This kind of discussion is only valid when the poster defines what he considers is evidence or proof for what ever question or challenge he is presenting. Otherwise the exchange will be irrelevant to you.

 

[Heyo]

Haha. Alright alright I understand what you say. This kind of discussion is only valid when the poster defines what he considers is evidence or proof for what ever question or challenge he is presenting. Otherwise the exchange will be irrelevant to you.

You can put it that way. I'm just interested in how someone would proceed if his preferred god proof was accepted. Because all those only lead to a deistic god or one with a single or few attributes but never to the specific god the apologist is believing in.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What about the opposite?

Is there an option for you to see that all the gods were created by humans or are you completely closed to the possibility?

Personally I believe in God, so I do not see an option without a God who created our universe.

 

[firedragon]

You can put it that way. I'm just interested in how someone would proceed if his preferred god proof was accepted. Because all those only lead to a deistic god or one with a single or few attributes but never to the specific god the apologist is believing in.

Ah I see. So what you are saying is your approach to this question you posed is hypothetically accepting a sort of deistic God and what you require is any evidence or proof one could speak of for their own specific idea of their God. Vis a Vis, YHWH, Brahma, Zeus, Allah, Atanatu and so on.

 

[Heyo]

Ah I see. So what you are saying is your approach to this question you posed is hypothetically accepting a sort of deistic God and what you require is any evidence or proof one could speak of for their own specific idea of their God. Vis a Vis, YHWH, Brahma, Zeus, Allah, Atanatu and so on.

Yes.
Isn't it remarkable that so many proofs for a generic god exist and get frequently rehashed on RF but nobody thinks about the next step?

 

[firedragon]

Yes.
Isn't it remarkable that so many proofs for a generic god exist and get frequently rehashed on RF but nobody thinks about the next step?

Thats true. Its not nobody, but its very rarely addressed.

So may I ask you based on what argument do you accept a deistic God? Any argument or is there a specific argument?

 

[Heyo]

Thats true. Its not nobody, but its very rarely addressed.

So may I ask you based on what argument do you accept a deistic God? Any argument or is there a specific argument?

I'll accept any (serious) one for the challenge.
I accept none personally. But the most convincing of all I know of is the fine tuning argument. (Though I wouldn't recommend to try the challenge on that one, it is very specific and, imo, can only lead to a deist god.)

 

[alypius]

We observe caused causes in the world.

The desk lamp causes the room to be illuminated. But the bulb is caused to glow by the electricity.

If the electricity caused itself then it would have to have pre-existed itself which is absurd.

Therefore, the electricity was caused by something else.

There couldn't be an infinite chain of causes to explain the electricity because there were no first cause there would be no subsequent effects.

By elimination the only option left to explain what we observe is an uncaused cause.

Could we call this uncaused cause God?

 

[firedragon]

I'll accept any (serious) one for the challenge.
I accept none personally. But the most convincing of all I know of is the fine tuning argument. (Though I wouldn't recommend to try the challenge on that one, it is very specific and, imo, can only lead to a deist god.)

Any argument for God, is not actually an argument for God as anyone knows it. I think you have either misunderstood the whole argument or even in this post are dismissing it.

If you are making the premise of the so called fine tuning argument, then that's it. Shop closed. It should not come up as a contention again because that is the premise you are beginning your discussion on. The thing is, if you have not even understood the argument, the premise breaks down.

 

[Heyo]

Any argument for God, is not actually an argument for God as anyone knows it. I think you have either misunderstood the whole argument or even in this post are dismissing it.

If you are making the premise of the so called fine tuning argument, then that's it. Shop closed. It should not come up as a contention again because that is the premise you are beginning your discussion on. The thing is, if you have not even understood the argument, the premise breaks down.

I'm not sure about the different god proofs but I'm sure I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase?

 

[firedragon]

I'm not sure about the different god proofs but I'm sure I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase?

I will have to get back to you Heyo. Cant type at the moment.

 

[PureX]

So human minds have the power to displace God's presence?

How do you explain that many folks who were open to an authentic and independent God showing itself, but it never does? Let's note that the 9-11 hijackers were so tuned into God that they all committed suicide for God. They must have been damn certain of what God wanted, right? If you're not doing the same perhaps your mind is closed.

Yet there is no rational and factual argument that a theist can make that shows their faith is reliable.

A placebo can't work unless we 'believe in' it. And then, how it works depends on what we believe it will do for/to us. Theism based on "believing in" some particular concept of God is dangerous. It's why religions sometimes become toxic to everyone that gets involved in it. Religion can be corrupted by people who want to use it for negative purposes.

Theism based on faith, however, can be very helpful to us. Because it does not seek to eliminate doubt through enforced belief, but to trust in hope even as we acknowledge our doubts. Faith is an excellent tool for moving ahead when we can't determine the outcome in advance. "God" is a means of identifying, clarifying, and symbolizing the ideals that we would most hope to be manifested in our lives, and putting our faith in 'God' is an effective way of actively moving toward those ideals even when we can't know that they will manifest the results that we'd hoped for.

All this foolishness about 'evidence' and 'proof' is just that: foolishness. Faith is how we humans move forward when we don't have the convincing evidence or proof to overcome our doubts in advance. But we're willing to act on the our hope, in the face of that unknowing.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

Not that it's new, but maybe l can rehash the argument that the best evidence for God is His own Word. This means the written Word, the Bible, alongside the living Word, Jesus Christ.

This is not a proof, which by definition must be deductive, but a statement of faith based on substance. Ultimately, it is faith that justifies.

The whole Truth can only be revealed by the One that is Truth. God has spoken and has made it known that faith pleases Him. This is the response He wants. Faith is the assurance that Truth exists and will reveal itself.

Did any of the faithful servants or prophets of God not see their faith rewarded? Had their faith been misplaced, there would not have been a response from God.

In other words, the subjective faith of man allows the objective Truth of God to be revealed. And since faith in the Truth of God has never brought failure, we can only say that God continues to prove his own existence.

 

[firedragon]

I will have to get back to you Heyo. Cant type at the moment.

Sorry @Heyo Sometimes duty calls.

With the premise of the fine tuning argument, given you agree to it, do you think this is an intelligent being?

 

[Heyo]

Sorry @Heyo Sometimes duty calls.

With the premise of the fine tuning argument, given you agree to it, do you think this is an intelligent being?

One or more. I know that the simulation hypothesis is questionable itself, so I don't bring it as counter point but as an analogy. If we live in a simulation, the programmers are pretty much like gods. They are "outside of time and space", they are very powerful regarding the creation (and manipulation) of the simulation, they are (potentially) omniscient, etc. They might have come to the parameters for our world by trial and error (similar to a multiverse solution) but some intelligence is necessary to program a simulation. They are closest to what I can imagine a god to be.

 

[syo]

You can't have mountains without the Mountain-God.

 

[firedragon]

One or more.

One or a million, it or they have to be intelligent. Is it or is it not?

 

[firedragon]

One or more.

With this question you have shown that you have not understood the arguments you say you would take as foundationally true. So this cannot go anywhere really. Thats why I asked you earlier pdf you understand the arguments you are saying you will give the pass as true.