Proofs for God/Religion. Got a good one?

[sojourner]

Are you going to argue for Pascal's Wager? Thank God, I thought you were going to continue being irrelevant to this thread.

The OP wanted proof for God. Paschal's Wager clearly does not argue for proof -- only for faith. If you notice, I wasn't arguing for the Wager. My position is that it is untenable here. What I'm arguing against now, O Best Beloved, is for you to tighten your argument. Paschal had a particular God in mind when he stated the Wager. For other possibilities to be raised places conditions on the Wager that never existed. Therefore, they render your argument false. The Wager works, assuming the God that Pascal has in mind.

As for my being "irrelevant to the thread," I seem to have sparked a pretty involved discussion. And, BTW, what is irrelevant to the thread is ad hominem attacks, such as stating that someone is "irrelevant."

Go chase yourself.

 

[sojourner]

I would disagree that theology isn't a free-for-all. It clearly doesn't work with anything objective (i.e. logic or real evidence), thus it must be confined to the subjective, and thus it works in whatever way you want it to work.

Boy do you have the wrong idea about theology. "Never try to teach a pig to sing" leaps to mind here...

 

[sojourner]

But he could be wrong. The 'actual' God could be one who doesn't like wagers. The point is he said the way to benefit was to believe in God(the christian God). But we're saying that actually, that's not the way to win because the christian God might not be the actual God.

...And you're blaming me for being all over the place??? You're comparing apples to oranges here, Skeezix!

 

[sojourner]

It is not my claim at all, I was referring to claims in the Bible, I don't believe any of it. I was refuting a claim made by another, but you know that anyway.


I forgot you were a buddhist.


heheh!
If you don't know what it says, maybe you should stop making claims about me.

Did you see anyone defending the claim? No? Perhaps others have read the bible too.

Evasive. Why not just be honest and say you don't know instead of spamming up the thread?

 

[sojourner]

Actually I wasn't wrong. We found that there was no way of knowing what God is. So saying x about him is equally valid as anything else. Unless you can show me how we can know something about God...

Yes, but only under the condition that what we say about God is actually helpful in the spiritual endeavor. You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

 

[sojourner]

I'm actually genuinely interested in the power of words and symbols now.

Yet you misuse them...

I'm hurt that you'd think that I'm still trolling.

And yet, you troll...

All power structures that have had success have also had captivating words and symbols. Think of religion and their symbols and texts, governments and constitutions that are held so dear, Hitlerian rhetoric and Nazi symbols. Maybe there is more to words and symbols than we might at first think.

And yet you choose to be dishonest about them...

 

[sojourner]

so it seems odd that Sojourner, says something unsubstantiated about God,

Show me. Or stop making the accusation.

 

[BottomlessThought]

The OP wanted proof for God. Paschal's Wager clearly does not argue for proof -- only for faith. If you notice, I wasn't arguing for the Wager. My position is that it is untenable here. What I'm arguing against now, O Best Beloved, is for you to tighten your argument. Paschal had a particular God in mind when he stated the Wager. For other possibilities to be raised places conditions on the Wager that never existed. Therefore, they render your argument false. The Wager works, assuming the God that Pascal has in mind.

You're an idiot if you think the fact that Pascal only meant the Wager to apply to one God means that there is no possibility of any other Gods. My argument requires no tightening. Imagine instead that I make up some fiction (which is all I think the Christian God is; nothing more and nothing less - don't bother challenging this unless you can respond to my argument as a whole, though) about a God who

As you said yourself, the Wager (only) works if there are two possibilities: that the God Pascal had in mind exists (if this is true, the result would be positive if you agree, and negative if you don't), or he doesn't (if this is true, the result would be neutral if you agree, and neutral if you don't). By the logic that if the God you choose to worship in (and when I say "you", I mean a person in general, not you in particular) does not exist and you were wrong, nothing negative can happen, Pascal is saying that the best bet is that God exists. But this fails to apply as an argument because of the possibility of Gods who would specifically take a dislike, say, to belief in the Christian God; these Gods are no less likely than the Christian God, so if one of them happens to exist, then Pascal's Wager (which is based on the premise that if your chosen God does not exist and you were wrong, nothing bad will happen; this premise is blown away by the possibility of Gods who would be vengeful if you believed in this chosen God rather than them) is falsified. What Pascal intended makes no difference when it comes to the validity of his argument for faith.

In any case, you cannot feign belief based on a betting argument. Surely an omniscient God would know exactly what kind of hedging you were up to.

As for my being "irrelevant to the thread," I seem to have sparked a pretty involved discussion. And, BTW, what is irrelevant to the thread is ad hominem attacks, such as stating that someone is "irrelevant."

Go chase yourself.

You have sparked an involved discussion, but an irrelevant one, in that most of your claims are to do with insisting that there is no proof for God (which, obviously, is an agreeable sort of thing to say, but not what the OP was looking for).

Boy do you have the wrong idea about theology. "Never try to teach a pig to sing" leaps to mind here...

Do you have a degree in theology? Who is making the ad hominem attacks now? And what, what on earth, makes you think theology is worth anything when it has completely failed to contribute to humanity's progress? Your idea that you can argue better than me if you have studied theology is misguided, especially considering that I know theology PhDs who cannot argue better than me, and most of them think my view has credence anyway.

 

[cablescavenger]

Talking about someone in the third person is usually considered less than respectable. And when did I call you any names (out loud I mean)?

You mean like you did about me with bottomless pit? As for the name calling, perhaps you are more used to it than I am, but I don't feel the need to converse with you.

Yes, you've made it clear that you would rather propagandize with impunity and without being called on it. I told you that wasn't going to happen here.

Vivid imagination you have there. I seem to remember inviting debate as long as it was absent of personal insult, at which point conversation becomes pointless and yet you still continue to call me a liar, and presuppose what I do or do not know.

Here is a quote to remind you:

Originally Posted by cablescavenger
Quagmire

You may question me on anything, critique my posts, correct me if I am wrong, disagree with me, compare and contrast views, highlight differences between us, and of course we can agree to disagree.

I am happy to do all of this as it makes for lively debate, and I assume within the spirit of the forum, but this requires a meeting of the minds and mutual respect.

If you cannot take someone on face value, and you start to bring their integrity in to question, and when you suggested I was not telling the truth, the meeting of minds was lost.

And forgive me for consistently exposing yours.

It is good that you see yourself as an exposer, but haven't you got to expose someone first before you can claim to consistently expose me for the charlatan I am?

Which brings us back to your claim. This quote might explain my position:

"The teacher, if indeed wise, does not bid you to enter the house of their wisdom, but leads you to the threshold of your own mind." - Khalil Gibran

I am inviting you to prove me wrong, by doing a little reading.

I think we both know that isn't going to happen.

 

[muffin8or]

...And you're blaming me for being all over the place??? You're comparing apples to oranges here, Skeezix!

Explain. If I bet on one horse but another horse wins I lose out. If I bet on one God but a different God is the real one, I lose out.

I don't see what's wrong.

 

[muffin8or]

Yes, but only under the condition that what we say about God is actually helpful in the spiritual endeavor. You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

I don't follow. Are you saying we can actually know something about god?

 

[muffin8or]

The assumptions that you make:

Canoes cannot be God, first off, because canoes are plural. God is not. Second, canoes are manufactured goods. God is not. Your statement is clearly dismissive.

1) God cannot be in more than one place at once (otherwise he could be all canoes all the time) He cannot choose to reside in created objects

How does seeing God as a canoe help you to a broader understanding of the world, yourself, and others?

2) God's nature is meant to help us get a broader understanding of the world and others

How does "God as a canoe" inform the nature of humanity and our place in the created order?

3) God's nature and attributes are meant to inform us of our place in the created order

If God is like a canoe, how does that help us identify specific areas in which humanity has failed by not being "canoelike?"

4) Humans are meant to be Godlike and thus canoe-like

When human beings suffer, how does "God is like a canoe" help us to understand and cope with that suffering?

5) The attributes of God are meant to help us cope with suffering

If God is like a canoe, how does that understanding inform ways in which our deviation from the "created norm" can be rectified?

6) The attributes of God are meant to help us get back to the "created norm"

If God is like a canoe, how does that metaphor help us re-envision our place in the world?

7) God's Canoe-ness is meant to help us re-envision our place in the world

If God is like a canoe, how is God immanent to humanity?

8) God is immanent

How is God transcendent with regard to humanity?

9) God is transcendent

How does picturing God as a canoe inform your inner life and help you engage it?

10) Your picture of God is meant to help you inform your inner life and help you engage it.

I shall reply to these assumptions:

1) My position is that God resides in all canoes and that he works in unison as one, while residing in said canoes. Once a canoe is made, he moves into it. The wood of the canoe has no special property but the Lord is in each canoe. In other words, God is not found outside a canoe.
2) God's Canoe-ness is not meant to help us get a broader understanding of the world
3) God's Canoe-ness is not meant to inform us of our place in the created order
4) We were not created in the image of God, so there is no need to aspire to be canoe-like
5) The knowledge of the attributes of God are not meant to help us cope with suffering
6) The knowledge of the attributes of God are not meant to help us get back to the "created norm"
7) God's Canoe-ness is not meant to help us re-envision our place in the world
8) God is not immanent
9) God is not transcendent
10) Your picture of God is not meant to help you inform your inner life and help you engage it

As for this, I shall reply.

In what way is God like a canoe?

I started from a position of not knowing anything. I then realised that words and symbols have immense power (Nazi, Hitler, Governments, constitutions etc.) I then discovered the word canoe. It always makes me smile and makes me feel warm inside. It has a variety of elements, the hard 'c', the slightly nasal 'n', the reassuring 'oo' sound. I found peace and happiness each time I saw the canoe or heard it. I found something more, something in the power of words and symbols. I don't know for certain that God is a Canoe, there is no proof per se. But that's why I think God is a canoe.

If you're serious about engaging this as a precise metaphor for God, then these questions, aimed precisely at areas of human spiritual engagement, must be considered. Perhaps you'd like to contemplate them and answer them as honestly as you can -- that is, if you were serious about your OP, and not just using it to troll for fish to fry.

And this. Somehow you know precisely what engages the human spiritually. You make a few too many assumptions about the nature of God and what engages people spiritually.

 

[PolyHedral]

The Wager works, assuming the God that Pascal has in mind.

That is not a valid assumption. The wager is therefore irrelavent.

 

[839311]

People don't like the fact that this life is all there is.

Thats not a fact. Good luck trying to prove it.

God could exist. Gods could exist. This could be the matrix created by an advanced species, maybe the human species. Eternal return might be correct. Eternal consciousness in one sense or another might be correct.

Or, it may be that your belief does turn out to be the truth. At best its one of the worst possibilities, at worst it is the worst possibility. If your going to put faith in anything, you should consider something hopeful and positive.

Having said that, the rest of your points I read are excellent. You get a !

 

[BottomlessThought]

Thats not a fact. Good luck trying to prove it.

God could exist. Gods could exist. This could be the matrix created by an advanced species, maybe the human species. Eternal return might be correct. Eternal consciousness in one sense or another might be correct.

Or, it may be that your belief does turn out to be the truth. At best its one of the worst possibilities, at worst it is the worst possibility. If your going to put faith in anything, you should consider something hopeful and positive.

Having said that, the rest of your points I read are excellent. You get a !

Sometimes people say that something is a "fact" when all they really mean is that it is the likeliest reality by far, and God not existing is a far likelier reality than God existing.

BTW, Off-Topic: How does someone get over 400,000 frubals in 617 posts? I thought the only way to get them was by someone else giving you one thanks to a good post (and good posts as you may have, I can't believe that you get 660 frubals per post!)?

 

[Ifiwerearichman]

So we're looking at the universe and the fine-tuning of its properties rather than the world and nature? Bear in mind that two different arguments are at work here.

I'm afraid that, before we proceed (or you go to sleep at an unnaturally early time), you need to give a step by step explanation of the argument you're putting forward and why it counts as evidence for God. Without that, we don't know what we're attacking; we could guess what you're suggesting, but never really be sure

Yes. It is the same argument, for this fine tuning and purpose of the universe implies design.

 

[muffin8or]

Thats not a fact. Good luck trying to prove it.

God could exist. Gods could exist. This could be the matrix created by an advanced species, maybe the human species. Eternal return might be correct. Eternal consciousness in one sense or another might be correct.

Or, it may be that your belief does turn out to be the truth. At best its one of the worst possibilities, at worst it is the worst possibility. If your going to put faith in anything, you should consider something hopeful and positive.

Having said that, the rest of your points I read are excellent. You get a !

Swap a cookie for a Frubal?

I say fact when arguing to make my position look stronger. More of a bad discussion technique than a claim. Although, from what you've said unicorns and pixies and fairies and leprechauns can exist. From what I've seen, it's just as valid to claim God as it is pixies.
My problem is that if I put faith into something positive it is actually quite likely to be the wrong positive. If I believe in the Christian God there are thousands of God claims that could be the correct ones. Even within Christianity I could be wrong. It would be a colossal waste of time. Perhaps neutrality would be best; when I meet Zeus in The Elysian Fields he might commend me for not succumbing to all the other religions

Plus I don't think many Gods would appreciate my reason for belief being a bet for my own selfish gain.

 

[839311]

Sometimes people say that something is a "fact" when all they really mean is that it is the likeliest reality by far, and God not existing is a far likelier reality than God existing.

Thats news to me, first time Ive ever heard this. I wouldn't recommend using the word fact that way, because that is not what it means and Im fairly certain that the vast majority of people would agree. I certainly hope they would anyway. I would be really disappointed if the word fact got morphed into 'likeliest by far'.

BTW, Off-Topic: How does someone get over 400,000 frubals in 617 posts? I thought the only way to get them was by someone else giving you one thanks to a good post (and good posts as you may have, I can't believe that you get 660 frubals per post!)?

Only if your especially cool could you even begin to dream about reaching as many frubals as I have!

Or, you could go back in time and participate in frubal orgies to reach ridiculous levels of frubals, well into the tens and hundreds of millions. The way it used to work was the more frubals you had, the more frubals another person would get if you fruballed them. I think about half my frubals were the result of one person fruaballing me once.

 

[muffin8or]

Yes. It is the same argument, for this fine tuning and purpose of the universe implies design.

You have shown me no purpose.

I've already replied to the fine tuning part

 

[839311]

I say fact when arguing to make my position look stronger. More of a bad discussion technique than a claim.

Yes, probably best that we stay clear of that technique. Its hard to do sometimes, I find. Still, its amazing how playing around with words can get one out of a bad spot lol.

Although, from what you've said unicorns and pixies and fairies and leprechauns can exist. From what I've seen, it's just as valid to claim God as it is pixies.

The thing is leprechauns and fairies and pixies aren't particularly important. If they did exist people would probably be more interested in stealing a leprechauns gold. Their power is rather limited in comparison and their existence probably wouldn't add much if anything to our understanding of the fundamental questions we have about reality. God tends to do that.

Perhaps neutrality would be best; when I meet Zeus in The Elysian Fields he might commend me for not succumbing to all the other religions

He'd be a fool not to. Wisdom is what it is.

Plus I don't think many Gods would appreciate my reason for belief being a bet for my own selfish gain.

Certainly not the good ones.