Proofs for God/Religion. Got a good one?

[sojourner]

I'm going to be honest and say that I'm here as an experiment on whether or not there are any theists who believe there are proofs for God, and whether or not (after their arguments are shown to be broken, just as Pascal's Wager is) they admit to seeing their mistake. I basically came here with the assumption that faith exists in those people and then arguments arise from the faith; I was interested to see if a (less advanced, clearly, than you) theist would put up their arguments for God, and was almost hoping that, once these arguments were disproved, they would cease to believe in God. This experiment counts as evidence for whether or not theists in general are willing to have their faiths challenged if it becomes clear that there is no evidence for God. This will help me with whether or not I should bother breaking the arguments down in real life as well, because if they won't understand their mistake anyway, there's no reason to do so.

Unpleasant as this may seem, it's why I'm here. You asked for a (presumably honest) response, and you got one.

Well thanks for being honest. At least now I know what brand of snake I'm dealing with. There seems to be something decidedly sociopathic about an individual who enjoys shattering the hopes and dreams of others, simply to watch them squirm. Congratulations on your altruistic and humanitarian endeavors.

Do you have a PhD? I know two people with PhDs in theology, and both would agree that theology fails to make an arguments for God's existence that have any credence.

I never claimed that theology is a proof for God. You did.

but they would both admit that it's less useful to the modern world than science.

That depends upon the field of endeavor. I wouldn't want to use science as much as theology in helping a person develop spiritually, for example. When designing an airplane, science is on my mind much more than theology. When going about the endeavor of healing, it's a much more even split.

In any case, it's interesting that you have a degree in theology, and yet don't seem to understand the difference between proof and evidence.

It's interesting that you're assessing me when you know nothing about me.

Let me rephrase what I meant. Your idea that you can argue with even a fraction of my understanding is flawed if you're basing that idea on your knowledge of theology. I'm not saying anything, nor did I say anything; I said "if", and I'm saying "if" here as well. If you think the reason you can argue with my level of understanding in this field is because you have a degree in theology, then you're wrong; theology does not help with understand. Theologians do not have a deeper understanding of reality than everyone else, nor is their logical ability on par with scientists.

And my daddy can beat up your daddy. This is a religious forum; the thread is ostensibly a theological debate. You do the math.

Yes, but the basis of theology - the verification of the arguments for or against God - seems to better served by a logical understanding of science than any specific study of another subject. Maybe at more abstract levels, the direct study is necessary of God, but not at the level of this thread (evidence for God).

Translation: I'm going to use a sewing-needle to drive a nail into concrete, and then conclude that a nail cannot be driven into concrete.

I'm placing you on ignore. You are only the second person I've so treated, and I'm doing so because your motivation for being here sickens me.

 

[BottomlessThought]

Well thanks for being honest. At least now I know what brand of snake I'm dealing with. There seems to be something decidedly sociopathic about an individual who enjoys shattering the hopes and dreams of others, simply to watch them squirm. Congratulations on your altruistic and humanitarian endeavors.

I don't enjoy shattering the hopes and dreams of others. I'm conducting an experiment into why people are trying to provide arguments for God when the truth is that once these arguments are disproved, they will continue to believe in God. Why not admit that it is all down to faith if that is what it will come to? Where does the urge come to back up with an argument, to justify, a belief which you only hold because of faith, and which you would later admit is unjustifiable?

I never claimed that theology is a proof for God. You did.

Really? Where did I say that theology is a proof for God? Quote?

That depends upon the field of endeavor. I wouldn't want to use science as much as theology in helping a person develop spiritually, for example. When designing an airplane, science is on my mind much more than theology. When going about the endeavor of healing, it's a much more even split.

But why say that there is anything tangibly good about helping someone spiritually? I personally think that's a field of endeavour cloaked in dogma and non-progressive for the future progress of our race.

And my daddy can beat up your daddy. This is a religious forum; the thread is ostensibly a theological debate. You do the math.

LOL: what I'm saying is that your degree in theology plays no part in your being better than me in this debate, because my understanding of the logic behind the arguments is at least as strong as yours (stronger if you think any of them are valid evidence), and I think this says something about the validity of theology itself.

Translation: I'm going to use a sewing-needle to drive a nail into concrete, and then conclude that a nail cannot be driven into concrete.

You've said yourself that theology does not rely on only logic, whereas the arguments for God are, as everything is, reliant on logic, but in this case a flawed logic, which is why I can deconstruct it using just logic and without any knowledge of theology. And if theology arises from the logic, what is the point in claiming that there is anything outside logic to theology?

I'm placing you on ignore. You are only the second person I've so treated, and I'm doing so because your motivation for being here sickens me.

LOL, do you think I care about what you think? It's your problem. I will not consider my cause any more in vain because of your lack of presence. If you think I spend a reasonable portion of my life here, you're mistaken; I have much better things to do. But the experiment is interesting and I want to see how it turns out. So goodbye.

Edit: Wait a minute, do I also get to not see your posts? That would be brilliant.

 

[muffin8or]

I didn't ask for "commentary" on misquoted assumptions. I engaged you with specific questions, to which I expect answers if we're going to debate your metaphor.

You wanted a debate, a debate includes me commenting on the nature of your questions. And if your questions start from a point of assumption then they are loaded. And if they're loaded I need to show that. Listen to this " If God is like a canoe, how is God immanent to humanity." You assume God is immanent. " How does "God as a canoe." inform the nature of humanity and our place in the created order?" Does God need to inform us of our place? Not necessarily! You complain I don't debate well I'm debating.

And you accuse me of being all over the place!

Yes. Do you have a point? OH! The passive aggressive one. Almost missed it. I'm not all over the place. I took each of your questions, showed why they were all loaded and biased then answered them. Sounds like a god debate.

In other words, you're not being serious here -- you're merely spamming up the thread. Which means that your OP is simply trolling for people to ridicule. Thanks for that! I'm sure everyone's lives have been enriched by your actions here.

Excuse me? Please, don't be so insulting. I think you'll find my beliefs are similar to that of a pantheist, except with canoes except the universe. Do you belittle pantheism as well? Just because what I believe isn't mainstream (neither is pantheism to be fair) you see it fit to be belittled. I'm offended.

You got that right -- and you haven't made any progress either (Much like Cornwallis in the American South...)

More insults? I'm getting this really bad energy from you now.

So does a battery, but you have to hook it up right for it to do what it was designed to do... so far, you're not showing any aptitude with that endeavor in this post.

A battery cannot make people laugh or cry or love or hate. Words can. That's the power of words. Electricity can't make you feel passionate or joyous, but words can.

Summary: God is a canoe, because words have power. And that addresses the theological agenda...how, again? Oh! Right! It doesn't. Because you have no idea what you're doing and couldn't care less. You just seem intent on boring the rest of us with your inane balloon-juice on the subject.

I didn't make myself clear! I'm sorry. My mistake. The words not only have power but also evoked emotion in me. I felt happier, as if I had found God within the power words.

Well, yes. I do! That's what years of training in spiritual direction have taught me.

You don't know what engages me spiritually. Each individual is unique. I'm not even sure why you think God needs to engage spiritually with someone

You're full of crap.

Your ad hominem is neither substantiated nor appreciated. I refer back to the bit about pantheists, do you ridicule them too?

 

[sojourner]

You wanted a debate, a debate includes me commenting on the nature of your questions. And if your questions start from a point of assumption then they are loaded. And if they're loaded I need to show that. Listen to this " If God is like a canoe, how is God immanent to humanity." You assume God is immanent. " How does "God as a canoe." inform the nature of humanity and our place in the created order?" Does God need to inform us of our place? Not necessarily! You complain I don't debate well I'm debating.

Yes. Do you have a point? OH! The passive aggressive one. Almost missed it. I'm not all over the place. I took each of your questions, showed why they were all loaded and biased then answered them. Sounds like a god debate.

Excuse me? Please, don't be so insulting. I think you'll find my beliefs are similar to that of a pantheist, except with canoes except the universe. Do you belittle pantheism as well? Just because what I believe isn't mainstream (neither is pantheism to be fair) you see it fit to be belittled. I'm offended.

More insults? I'm getting this really bad energy from you now.

A battery cannot make people laugh or cry or love or hate. Words can. That's the power of words. Electricity can't make you feel passionate or joyous, but words can.

I didn't make myself clear! I'm sorry. My mistake. The words not only have power but also evoked emotion in me. I felt happier, as if I had found God within the power words.

You don't know what engages me spiritually. Each individual is unique. I'm not even sure why you think God needs to engage spiritually with someone

Your ad hominem is neither substantiated nor appreciated. I refer back to the bit about pantheists, do you ridicule them too?

If you want to argue theology, fine. I'll argue theology till doomsday. If you want to argue stoopidity, I'll leave that to endlessthoughts.

 

[sojourner]

My original argument stands: If you want scientific proof of God, you're barking up the wrong tree. That being said, the inability of science to "prove" God in no way dismisses God's existence.

That's all I have to say about that. If you wish to take further potshots at faith, please do it on an atheist web site. I'm tired of the same old atheist wanking here at religious forums.

 

[muffin8or]

My original argument stands: If you want scientific proof of God, you're barking up the wrong tree. That being said, the inability of science to "prove" God in no way dismisses God's existence.

That's all I have to say about that. If you wish to take further potshots at faith, please do it on an atheist web site. I'm tired of the same old atheist wanking here at religious forums.

I agree with you here. I never disagreed. But it seems you can't accept my beliefs, discuss pascals wager to any degree or explicitly say that my claims about God are equally valid than any other.

From all we've discussed I see you're actually being unfair. When confronted with a belief you see no reason for you attack it. On the flip side you chastise me for doing the same. You refuse to follow threads, contradicting yourself then not admitting you do when shown the whole thread, and seem to launch personal attacks when it suits you but throw Latin phrases at people when they do it to you.

Religious in this case, I believe, means 'pertaining to religion' rather than 'bound by monastic views.' Maybe I'm wrong.

I do want to discuss theology (hence pascal's wager, my own beliefs about God and validity of claims about God.) Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief. That's what I'm doing. You dismiss it as 'stoopidity' and 'atheist wanking' but you're unfair to do so. I could have dismiss religious claims as 'stoopidity' and 'religious wanking' but I didn't.

 

[savethedreams]

My original argument stands: If you want scientific proof of God, you're barking up the wrong tree. That being said, the inability of science to "prove" God in no way dismisses God's existence.

That's all I have to say about that. If you wish to take further potshots at faith, please do it on an atheist web site. I'm tired of the same old atheist wanking here at religious forums.

I myself am trying to understand. i have asked history, science, questions and they are straightforward. Math questions simple answer. Religion gets very vague, and often confusing. and to come to all the ends of it... their no good record and the 'leader'/ god is invisible to begin with.

 

[sojourner]

I do want to discuss theology (hence pascal's wager, my own beliefs about God and validity of claims about God.) Theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief. That's what I'm doing. You dismiss it as 'stoopidity' and 'atheist wanking' but you're unfair to do so. I could have dismiss religious claims as 'stoopidity' and 'religious wanking' but I didn't.

Yet, you keep coming 'round to the "proof" issue. I don't buy it.

 

[muffin8or]

Yet, you keep coming 'round to the "proof" issue. I don't buy it.

Never when in my beliefs, pascal's wager or what we know about God (2nd round of discussion) did I ask for proof

 

[sojourner]

I myself am trying to understand. i have asked history, science, questions and they are straightforward. Math questions simple answer. Religion gets very vague, and often confusing. and to come to all the ends of it... their no good record and the 'leader'/ god is invisible to begin with.

Welcome to the world of theology.

Here's the real problem (as I have assessed it). We post-moderns have been conditioned to think critically, scientifically and reasonably ever since the 16th century. But the concept of Deity is much, much older than that. Modernism presented theology with a tremendous challenge and opportunity for growth. What it did, in effect, was to shatter suppositions of God's anthropomorphic qualities. In other words, as the physical world became bigger, God had to get bigger, too. God could no longer "ride a chariot across the sky." We now have to learn to discuss God's creation in scientific, not poetic, terms. As modernity demands a downward, tightening focus to get at the empirical facts, it also demands an outward, broadening focus to get at truth.

We have to understand that to talk about God is not to talk about a particularity, as was the case in classic times. It is to talk more generally and metaphorically than particularly and specifically.

Since most of us are better trained from school in the scientific method than we are the theological method, it becomes very difficult for us to think theologically and have it mean anything.

My advice is to learn to live with awe and mystery.

 

[sojourner]

Never when in my beliefs, pascal's wager or what we know about God (2nd round of discussion) did I ask for proof

All right. I'm going against my better judgment, but one of my faults is giving people too much of the benefit of the doubt. Let's take a mulligan.

What do you want to know about God?

 

[Quagmire]

You mean like you did about me with bottomless pit?

I never mentioned names.

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.

Obviously you do.

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:

Saying you're willing to act like a reasonable human being doesn't mean much if you consistently act like something else. If you say "I have integrity" while you're stealing someone's wallet, what do you think is going to make a bigger impression on that person, what you say or what you do?

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:



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

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

I think everyone who's read through this thread already knows what happened: you made a false claim, I called you on it, and you've spent the last several posts desperately trying to change the subject and whining about being picked on.

When are you going to learn that you can't get your foot out of your mouth by trying to pry it out with the other one?

Now, if you're done talking about yourself, lets get back to the topic: you said there are plenty of people in the Bible who claim to have seen God. I said "name one".

Still waiting.

I am inviting you to prove me wrong

Just how many times am I going to have to do that before you see it (or cop to it)?

Or we could just keep going like we have been: I prove you wrong, and you go on to prove all sorts of other interesting things about yourself.

 

[muffin8or]

What do you want to know about God?

First off, clarification.

Me: I came to a conclusion with another person on this thread that you can say God is whatever you want and be equally valid as anyone else.
You: Yeah, but you were patently wrong. Theology isn't a free-for-all. As I've said before, hyperbole doesn't help. It only makes your position look ridiculous.
Me: 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...
You: 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!
Me: I don't follow. Are you saying we can actually know something about god?
You: Did you read the thread? Did I say that? Didn't think so.

Can we know something about God? Or by extension of that, can you ensure your claim has more validity than if I just said some random thing about God.

Second is Pascal's wager. We left off by me saying

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.

and

What Pascal was doing was assessing the variables and seeing the best outcome. God's existence was the independent variable whereas he could change the belief in God. He found that out of the four combinations maintaining faith would achieve a favourable outcome, no matter what. What Pascal failed to do was see all the variables in relation to God. I.e. God1, God2, God3, God4...etc Thus the outcome of his wager (Always Believe in God) wouldn't be successful if he chose the wrong God. Now if he narrowed all possible Gods down to one his wager would be valid. But he didn't and it isn't.

Do you agree.

 

[Quagmire]

No. I think I said I wasn't responding to Quagmire, but he was welcome to do some reading if he wanted.

No one has to read any further than your posts to know that you're wrong.

 

[McBell]

No. I think I said I wasn't responding to Quagmire, but he was welcome to do some reading if he wanted.

So you reason for not supporting your unsubstantiated claim is because Quagmire asked you first?


Sounds more like a cop out than anything else.

 

[Majikthise]

Undisputable proof for the exsistance of God, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBEP5c-SUEQ

 

[Jethro]

The fact that we are here on this earth and that the universe exists, logically tells us that there is a divine Creator who is much greater than us. Atheist's ask the question, well who made God then? However, this is illogical, because if God made all things, and this out of nothing, obviously He is self-existent and without beginning or end (which no human mind can fully conceive, yet can believe and accept), and thus not created by a higher being. Otherwise, that higher being would be God, and then the argument goes on.

Now, physically, I know God exists because He changed my life and millions of others. Some may say that Allah has also changed the lives of millions, but the majority of Muslim's are born into the religion. However, to be a Christian one needs to be born again, which is what happened to me 15 years ago. At the age of 26, I was happy living my life of drugs, alcohol and fornication. I was not looking for God, but thankfully He was looking for me. One Saturday night I was at home with my then girl friend at the time. It was the first Saturday night in about 9 years that I was sober, did not smoke pot, did not go out with friends, and did not receive any phone calls. I looked at the TV guide and saw that the 1950s classic Ten Commandments was on. For some reason I was excited and did not decide to drink or smoke pot. It was a 4 hour movie and through that Biblical account of God using Moses to bring the Israelites out of Egypt, I was gripped to the TV. My girl friend went to bed very early and so I was left there all alone. It finished about 11:30, and by the end of it I knew that God existed and wanted to be part of my life. I prayed to Him and asked Him to forgive me for my sins. Instantly I felt a peace and a change in my life that I had never felt before. Three days later I got hold of a Bible and read for about 3 hours per night. I ended up quiting the drugs and alcohol, which up until that time was an impossibility. And lastly gave up my girl friend because she was not willing to follow Jesus Christ. Four years later I left my job and became a missionary pastor among Aboriginal people of Australia. I am still involved in this ministry and desire to serve the God who saved me for the rest of my days. Some may say that my experience is not proof of However, those who have been born again know exactly what I mean. Also, why do you think that thousands of Muslim's are becoming Christians at the expense of their own lives? Because they also have felt the power of God on their lives.
Hope this helps in your quest for truth.

 

[muffin8or]

The fact that we are here on this earth and that the universe exists, logically tells us that there is a divine Creator who is much greater than us. Atheist's ask the question, well who made God then? However, this is illogical, because if God made all things, and this out of nothing, obviously He is self-existent and without beginning or end (which no human mind can fully conceive, yet can believe and accept), and thus not created by a higher being. Otherwise, that higher being would be God, and then the argument goes on.

Where to start? How does the universe's existence logically tell us there is a divine creator. Take me through the steps.
Why is he 'obviously' self existent. In that case, why not have something less complex than god, say the universe, be self self existent. You're basically saying 'everything was created except God.' You haven't investigated the nature of God but come up with the grand assumption that he is eternal.

Now, physically, I know God exists because He changed my life and millions of others. Some may say that Allah has also changed the lives of millions, but the majority of Muslim's are born into the religion. However, to be a Christian one needs to be born again, which is what happened to me 15 years ago. At the age of 26, I was happy living my life of drugs, alcohol and fornication. I was not looking for God, but thankfully He was looking for me. One Saturday night I was at home with my then girl friend at the time. It was the first Saturday night in about 9 years that I was sober, did not smoke pot, did not go out with friends, and did not receive any phone calls. I looked at the TV guide and saw that the 1950s classic Ten Commandments was on. For some reason I was excited and did not decide to drink or smoke pot. It was a 4 hour movie and through that Biblical account of God using Moses to bring the Israelites out of Egypt, I was gripped to the TV. My girl friend went to bed very early and so I was left there all alone. It finished about 11:30, and by the end of it I knew that God existed and wanted to be part of my life. I prayed to Him and asked Him to forgive me for my sins. Instantly I felt a peace and a change in my life that I had never felt before. Three days later I got hold of a Bible and read for about 3 hours per night. I ended up quiting the drugs and alcohol, which up until that time was an impossibility. And lastly gave up my girl friend because she was not willing to follow Jesus Christ.

The way I would see your experience is as follows. You saw a TV show and thought you found God. You prayed to forgive your sins (and b extension you wanted not to sin any more.) Thus it wasn't God, it was your own will that stopped you taking drugs. Humans have this odd self deprecating view that they can't do anything except with God. If you've read the bible so much you obviously know of some of the more horrific verses in it. How do you reconcile them with a loving helpful God?

Four years later I left my job and became a missionary pastor among Aboriginal people of Australia. I am still involved in this ministry and desire to serve the God who saved me for the rest of my days. Some may say that my experience is not proof of However, those who have been born again know exactly what I mean. Also, why do you think that thousands of Muslim's are becoming Christians at the expense of their own lives? Because they also have felt the power of God on their lives.
Hope this helps in your quest for truth.

Ah, preaching and proselytizing, I'm sure the Aboriginal people appreciate you bringing the word of God to them. I think Muslims becoming Christian are irrational. First about God, second about their own safety. I'm not sure why a loving God would put someone in a position where their life is in danger simply for accepting Jesus into their heart.

 

[sandandfoam]

god often exists to make people feel clever for (not) believing in her

 

[muffin8or]

god often exists
Often? You mean the existence of God varies? An interesting view

to make people feel clever for (not) believing

I don't feel clever for not believing.

in her

Female, interesting. Most religions go for a male god.