Proofs for God/Religion. Got a good one?

[BottomlessThought]

Exactly! They aren't proofs for God. But they are arguments for God.

Well, that's what I've been saying all along! i.e.: Pink elephants have nothing to do with theology.

well, it is the only method we have of talking about God...

Which I've made CLEAR from the outset that effective ones don't exist.

He did ask for arguments -- and that's precisely what theological constructions do: provide arguments for God.
And if you think that theology is "pointless," I'd return your attention to people like Romero and Tutu.

Let's see: Slavery, misogyny, homophobia, injustice, oppression, terrorism, war, inequity, fascism -- shall I go on? Oh yes! We're doing splendidly with our "scientific and logical minds."
The problem with your argument is in asserting that theology sets out to "prove God." It does not. Theology seeks to provide us with constructions that help us understand ourselves and our place in the world better.

No one ever said that theological constructions were perfect. How can they be? We are imperfect human beings. Therefore, any understanding of the Divine will, likewise, be imperfect. But if you think medicine or any other science is perfect, may I point you to any one of a number of lawsuits levied against the medical community, or to the constant shift in whether coffee is beneficial or not, the best way to lose weight, etc.?

well, isn't that how we deal with God?

We each approach God from the confines of our own particularity.

Again, there is no proof! Why do you keep insisting that I think there is? And if it's true that there's no proof (as you've as much as asserted here), why do y'all keep whining for some??? However, if y'all would realize that theology is but one voice among many in the human search for "what is true," then perhaps you'd realize better that "proof" is not the be-all-end-all of human experience. This perspective that truth is somehow "ultimate" or "absolute" has repeatedly led the church down the primrose path of foisting one perspective on all people. Nazism did the same thing. Truth is not unilateral, ultimate, or absolute. Truth is a multifaceted animal that depends greatly on the meaning we assign to both facts and feelings. There is no reason why science and theology can't (and shouldn't) exist side by side.

Tell that to the mother of the little boy who fell into the gorilla pit...
Humanity is the only species that systematically kills its own kind and exercised unfair power over other species.

I don't rate it "more highly," but I will say this: We depend upon this planet for our existence; this planet does not depend upon us for its existence.

Would this be the same modern world-view that continues to systematically keep the powerless...powerless? Yes, the current "effect of religion" is mostly negative. It needs to change. But I assert that it can change and that it can help us to better our lot here.

I disagree that theology is "unimportant when it comes to logical decision-making." As for the rest of your assertion, I've been saying that objective evidence for God is a dead-end street. In the end, theology (God's back-side) is all we've got.

I have made no such assertion about God.

Yes. I do. End of argument.

What, precisely, do you feel it has derailed?

In what way do you think I believe God exists? I've left that door wiiiiide open to speculation.

I would posit that those who thought Ghandi a "madman" were a blight on society.

Oh? Prove it.

Shows what you know. I wasn't arguing from the Design position. At all.

'K. In what way did I "imply" that God "tests us?" Be specific, please. 'Cause I got a HUGE suspicion that you're assuming things about my position that are patently untrue.

I grow weary of this long argument that, whilst it is not quite going around in circles just yet, is both unrelated to the OP's intentions, and is filled with a lack of understanding that, whilst it reveals that you do have a thorough understanding of God, you have the wrong understanding of science and its place. BTW the things you listed aren't arguments for God either; since no God is required for them to exist, God is in no way related to their existence or lack thereof. I'm not saying here that there is an alternative explanation to God for them; I'm saying that there are much better explanations for them than God (because God is infinitely unlikely, in the absence of any other evidence), and thus, they are not arguments for God at all, but rather, nothing more than pointless assertions which could, if God existed, be attributed to him. This, however, was a genuinely on-topic point, and if you want to debate it further (nothing else, as everything else is irrelevant to the question at hand) I would be happy to.

You say that "humanity systematically kills its own kind"; that's true, and it has indeed arisen due to our superior complexity, and humanity has various other problems as well. But in comparioson with our penchant for thought, our advancement and progression, I think all of its problems are minor, temporary, or even if not temporary, necessary to achieve the kind of mental and scientific greatness we have. Look at the beauty of our artists, and the ingenuity of our scientific progress; we truly are a species moving ahead in the world through our understanding of it, and of course there will be set-backs, but that does not mean that, as a species, we are doing badly! Something wrong, yes, somethings to be improved on, but we're going in the right direction, and its science that is paving the way.

Like I clarified carefully, I'm not looking for proof, and nor is muffin8or. Understand the difference between proof and evidence.

 

[BottomlessThought]

No, I'm saying that the need for regimes to topple is argument for God.
Yes, God works through humanity and the relationships we form.
Again: No one can see God's face and live.

There is no "need for the regimes to topple"! This is just your perception of the world - again, it's your instinct telling you that the regimes you see topple when they need to, and you see God's handiwork behind this (a process which can much more justifiably and logically be seen as a normal phenomenon of human actions, and which is perfectly explicable and understandable through human thoughts, much more easily and logically than with the invention of a supernatural deity). But as I said, instinct is just a personal experience, subjective argument; it is nothing more, nothing to be interested in from an objective, logical point of view.

 

[sojourner]

I'm gonna ask you to back that statement up. Can you back that statement up?

Because that "Otherness" that we don't understand is part and parcel of what constitutes that which we understand as Divine.

You still haven't told me anything about what we actually know.

I don't know what you know about God. Apparently, you don't either.

Or even what you subjectively know and how you know it.

My knowledge is a highly personal thing, and I choose not to open myself up like that in this venue.

The Qur'an says that God doesn't want you to drink. The Bible says that Jesus drank wine and that we should emulate Jesus. Do you see how these conflicting claims from religious texts pose a problem? Why not follow the Muslim God? I'm glad you admit it was wrong to say infinite.

Robert A. Heinlein, in Time Enough for Love says: "God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be correct, but it's no sillier than any other theology."

Religion is culturally-based and usually culturally-eimbedded. Therefore, what is a cultural tenet for one group may not be for another. Allah says, "Don't drink." Paul says, "Don't drink too much." both are true for the particular cultures in which the statements were made. You're trying to make this some kind of universal-absolute-truth kind of thing. It's not. It is about how we understand ourselves and our place in the world. That perspective is always subject to change.

 

[muffin8or]

Let me summarise.

There is no proof for God. Fine
We can know what we can know about God. We'll go with it
We cannot see, hear or touch God. This means he is transcendent. We'll go with it
The absence of sensory information about God does not indicate God's absence. Extension of above
Because we cannot see, hear or touch God he is not immanent. Shaky ground
God does not therefore perform miracles. Problem for some?
There is a need for regimes to topple. Unproven?
No one can see God's face and live This does not mean that there is no face
God works through humanity and the relationships we form God likes sneakily undermining our free will by working through us. Problem for some?

The underlined bits are my reactions to the statements. I think it either logically follows or is what you said. Maybe it will be fun to work like this.

 

[iBobsy]

All well and good. The question is why do you believe in him?


Once again, why do you believe in God? The reason why I ask this over and over is that for a person in my situation a reason is needed. I can't just say it would be beneficial so I'll just believe. And why can't you be a good person without the threat of God looming over you?



It's odd to think that if God wasn't in your life you would not be spurred on by humanity and society to be a good person. Why do you need an all powerful being just to behave or be nice to people or be beneficial to society?

Even though you do say that you haven't included arguments for God it would be beneficial to discuss them

1. As I said, I do not feel the need to have a reason (which is based on science or logic) to believe in Him. My belief is based more on faith, rather than reason. And I think that if you require logic or reason to believe in G-d, then you'll be waiting a long time, possibly never find full proof, and have wandered off down the wrong path on warm Summer's day.

2. I am not saying that the reason I perform good deeds is because G-d has me at gunpoint. If I were in a situation where I had the choice of doing a good deed, which may take numerous hours and result in no physical or psychological reward, or I could go home and sleep. Many times the logical decision is to go home and enjoy some hard earned sleep. However, with an external force, which provides me with a psychological and physical reward, I am much more likely to perform the good deed. If It makes me a better person in any way, then I find no reason to need a reason to believe in It.

 

[muffin8or]

There is nothing that I understand as divine. Who in that case is the collective 'we'?

"Otherness" that we don't understand? Sounds like God of the Gaps to me.

I'm sorry that you don't want to share God's traits. Fine.

If religion is culturally based then how do you know what to follow from that religion? Do you pick and choose. What would give you that right? And how do you know how God wants you to live if you can't be sure of the validity of a passage in a holy text.

The vast majority of Muslims today don't drink. The vast majority of Christians do. Which one of them acts the way God wants them to in respect to alcohol

 

[sojourner]

I grow weary of this long argument that, whilst it is not quite going around in circles just yet, is both unrelated to the OP's intentions, and is filled with a lack of understanding that, whilst it reveals that you do have a thorough understanding of God, you have the wrong understanding of science and its place. BTW the things you listed aren't arguments for God either; since no God is required for them to exist, God is in no way related to their existence or lack thereof. I'm not saying here that there is an alternative explanation to God for them; I'm saying that there are much better explanations for them than God (because God is infinitely unlikely, in the absence of any other evidence), and thus, they are not arguments for God at all, but rather, nothing more than pointless assertions which could, if God existed, be attributed to him. This, however, was a genuinely on-topic point, and if you want to debate it further (nothing else, as everything else is irrelevant to the question at hand) I would be happy to.

Oh, I understand science and it's place, all right. And to use science to "prove God" is a patent misuse of it.

These arguments are not arguments for God's existence, but they do argue for a world view in which God is effectual in helping to alleviate problems that we cause and that we are not good at solving on our own.

You say that "humanity systematically kills its own kind"; that's true, and it has indeed arisen due to our superior complexity, and humanity has various other problems as well. But in comparioson with our penchant for thought, our advancement and progression, I think all of its problems are minor, temporary, or even if not temporary, necessary to achieve the kind of mental and scientific greatness we have. Look at the beauty of our artists, and the ingenuity of our scientific progress; we truly are a species moving ahead in the world through our understanding of it, and of course there will be set-backs, but that does not mean that, as a species, we are doing badly! Something wrong, yes, somethings to be improved on, but we're going in the right direction, and its science that is paving the way.

Tell that to a world full of people who see that 90% of the resources are being used up by 10% of the people.

 

[muffin8or]

1. As I said, I do not feel the need to have a reason (which is based on science or logic) to believe in Him. My belief is based more on faith, rather than reason. And I think that if you require logic or reason to believe in G-d, then you'll be waiting a long time, possibly never find full proof, and have wandered off down the wrong path on warm Summer's day.

2. I am not saying that the reason I perform good deeds is because G-d has me at gunpoint. If I were in a situation where I had the choice of doing a good deed, which may take numerous hours and result in no physical or psychological reward, or I could go home and sleep. Many times the logical decision is to go home and enjoy some hard earned sleep. However, with an external force, which provides me with a psychological and physical reward, I am much more likely to perform the good deed. If It makes me a better person in any way, then I find no reason to need a reason to believe in It.

I didn't say reason based in logic. I said reason. What is the reason for your faith. The why-ness if you will. Were you brought up that way? Did you have a personal revelation. I'm just curious.

The point is you are only a better person because of God. The actual logical solution is to help humanity for the betterment of society. The selfish solution is to go home and sleep.

It's difficult to think how someone can base a vast portion of their life around something they don't have a reason for

 

[sojourner]

There is no "need for the regimes to topple"! This is just your perception of the world - again, it's your instinct telling you that the regimes you see topple when they need to, and you see God's handiwork behind this (a process which can much more justifiably and logically be seen as a normal phenomenon of human actions, and which is perfectly explicable and understandable through human thoughts, much more easily and logically than with the invention of a supernatural deity). But as I said, instinct is just a personal experience, subjective argument; it is nothing more, nothing to be interested in from an objective, logical point of view.

Hmm. The Third Reich, the Iron Curtain, El Slavador, Apartheid, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, etc., didn't need to topple? These are all regimes that were patently unjust and oppressive. It has nothing to do with "instinct." It has everything to do with seeing what's going on in the world. As a matter of fact, I think the US needs to take a long, hard look at how we do things, too.

 

[BottomlessThought]

1. As I said, I do not feel the need to have a reason (which is based on science or logic) to believe in Him. My belief is based more on faith, rather than reason. And I think that if you require logic or reason to believe in G-d, then you'll be waiting a long time, possibly never find full proof, and have wandered off down the wrong path on warm Summer's day.

I'm going to start by noting that I really don't have a problem with you and your views; they seem to be more carefully thought out than most. I would have no contention with your view, but I'd just like to clarify that you understand that God is, in absence of any other evidence (and you admit this absence), objectively to be seen as infinitely unlikely to exist. Thus, if your faith takes you to God (and I'm not saying it shouldn't), it must admit that, far from being only just not provable, far from being 50/50, the odds against God's existence are, logically speaking, infinite.

2. I am not saying that the reason I perform good deeds is because G-d has me at gunpoint. If I were in a situation where I had the choice of doing a good deed, which may take numerous hours and result in no physical or psychological reward, or I could go home and sleep. Many times the logical decision is to go home and enjoy some hard earned sleep. However, with an external force, which provides me with a psychological and physical reward, I am much more likely to perform the good deed. If It makes me a better person in any way, then I find no reason to need a reason to believe in It.

Fair enough.

 

[muffin8or]

Hmm. The Third Reich, the Iron Curtain, El Slavador, Apartheid, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, etc., didn't need to topple? These are all regimes that were patently unjust and oppressive. It has nothing to do with "instinct." It has everything to do with seeing what's going on in the world. As a matter of fact, I think the US needs to take a long, hard look at how we do things, too.

All bad regimes topple. not because they need to but because people don't like being oppressed. In other words it isn't a function of God, it's a function of humans.

Why bring God into it when you can explain it through human explanation

 

[waitasec]

That's the problem here: non-theologians arguing theology.

the notion that theologians have a deeper understanding of reality is moot though...

Therein lies my point: It is a waste of time.

agreed.

 

[sojourner]

Because we cannot see, hear or touch God he is not immanent. Shaky ground

Oh, I think that God is immanent, albeit in a "back door" kind of way. God's spirit is described as breath. Breath is life. Every breath we take keeps us alive. How immanent is our breath?

There is a need for regimes to topple. Unproven?

I prefer to say that there are power structures that need to be broken.

No one can see God's face and live This does not mean that there is no face

"Face" is a metaphor.

God works through humanity and the relationships we form God likes sneakily undermining our free will by working through us. Problem for some?

In what way are honest relationships built on coersion?

 

[BottomlessThought]

Hmm. The Third Reich, the Iron Curtain, El Slavador, Apartheid, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, etc., didn't need to topple? These are all regimes that were patently unjust and oppressive. It has nothing to do with "instinct." It has everything to do with seeing what's going on in the world. As a matter of fact, I think the US needs to take a long, hard look at how we do things, too.

All of these regimes caused many, many deaths before they were toppled. Why didn't God stop them before they caused those deaths, if he was going to stop them at all?

When you say "need", I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact is that there is no "need" in the universe; it is all human constructs. There is no objective need; it is all up to human definitions of morality. Only in God's view could we say that there is a true, objective "need", and if God does not exist, he does not have this view.

 

[sojourner]

There is nothing that I understand as divine.

If that's how you see it...

"Otherness" that we don't understand? Sounds like God of the Gaps to me.

Shoot, western Christians don't even understand the "otherness" of eastern Muslims. How much less are we capable of understanding fully that which is Divine?

If religion is culturally based then how do you know what to follow from that religion? Do you pick and choose.

Yes!

What would give you that right?

What would deny me that right?

And how do you know how God wants you to live if you can't be sure of the validity of a passage in a holy text.

You're assuming that I'm a sola scriptura Christian. I am not.

Which one of them acts the way God wants them to in respect to alcohol

I don't think God cares one way or the other.

 

[sojourner]

All bad regimes topple. not because they need to but because people don't like being oppressed. In other words it isn't a function of God, it's a function of humans.

Why bring God into it when you can explain it through human explanation

Yes, it is human agency! but what about before? A call to justice, mercy, forbearance, equality, etc. are what we believe God wants for humanity. therefore, to bring God into the picture presents a platform by which we can effectively construct change. God isn't necessary, but a theological construction can help.

 

[BottomlessThought]

What would deny me that right?

Nothing would deny you that right. The question is, if there are parts to the religion which should not be there (which you are indicating by picking and choosing which bits to follow), and if the content of a religion was guided by God, why are those parts which should not be there present at all? Why doesn't God just get it right, if he is guiding the content? And if he isn't, what is the relationship between religion and God - why do we need religion at all? If we're going to assume in God, why not just stick to the plain, one, single, fundamental belief in him, rather than elaborating around it as religions do?

Yes, it is human agency! but what about before? A call to justice, mercy, forbearance, equality, etc. are what we believe God wants for humanity. therefore, to bring God into the picture presents a platform by which we can effectively construct change. God isn't necessary, but a theological construction can help.

Again, with God being infinitely unlikely (in the absence of any other evidence), you can't claim that the fact that it would be helpful, and pleasing, for him to be here in certain situations is an argument for his existence. We can construct change as humans alone; why bring God into it? It might be nice to feel that he is behind it, but that doesn't make an argument.

 

[sojourner]

Nothing would deny you that right. The question is, if there are parts to the religion which should not be there (which you are indicating by picking and choosing which bits to follow), and if the content of a religion was guided by God, why are those parts which should not be there present at all? Why doesn't God just get it right, if he is guiding the content? And if he isn't, what is the relationship between religion and God - why do we need religion at all? If we're going to assume in God, why not just stick to the plain, one, single, fundamental belief in him, rather than elaborating around it as religions do?

Well, you're neglecting to consider that we live in time and that we develop over time. What was appropriate for an ancient middle-eastern living under the boot of the Romans may not be appropriate for a post-modern American. It's not that God doesn't "get it right." It's that we change over time.

Why do we need religion? Perhaps we don't. I don't think Xy was originally a religion -- it was a movement. We have a tendency, I think to convolute what ought to be a very simple spirituality.

 

[sojourner]

you can't claim that the fact that it would be helpful, and pleasing, for him to be here in certain situations is an argument for his existence.

I didn't do that.

 

[muffin8or]

It's all very shaky- God is both immanent though his work cannot be explicitly seen and transcendent for that reason. You get to describe how God wants you to live based on pretty much nothing. God doesn't actually care about some of the things anyway. Power structures need to topple though there is no real evidence for this, just accounts of power structures that have toppled. The odd thing about this is that I'd have to show you a power structure that has never topple to argue against you. So, I'm just going to leave it. You know stuff about God that is personal to you so you won't share it. We can know what we know. We can't look upon the metaphorical face. Which somehow doesn't indicate there is no metaphorical face to be looked at. We can't know what God is like or what he wants through scripture because some parts are written for the time. It doesn't matter because he doesn't care about some things, though we cannot tell what. I could pick and choose stoning gays and punishing rape victims through forced marriage and forget about 'thou shalt not kill' and be equally Christian as you because I have the right to pick and choose.

It's all a bit woolly, all inconclusive, all slippery. The way it looks to me is that you can't tell me anything about God. There's no argument for God. There doesn't seem to be any reason for me to believe in a God. All the things above are what you've said. From that i glean that you can't tell me of any concrete beliefs you have. Because God doesn't care about random parts and scripture is unreliable. The odd thing is that this is just your view. Many Christians would disagree. I suppose I'll leave you with he list I've just mentioned and you can focus your energy BottomlessThought. If you have any bits you want to further discuss that's fine. But don't feel pressured to respond