Argument for God's existence.

[TBDude65]

If a kid were raised by magicians who always presented to them food via sleight of hand, and maintained these everyday illusions with respect to every facet of the child's imagination. For that child, food and other things can be manifested from thin air, and their parents are literal wizards.

Now...for that kid...when he goes to someone else's house and they turn on the tv, for that kid raised by (as far as he knew) literal wizards, would assume that it was an inherent explanation that the tv worked via magic.

So...is the kid correct? To him, it's inherent. Does it matter if it's the same argument and rationale by the time he becomes an adult? That this logic may be so in-grained (for some people) that what is "inherent" is akin to "magic."

It's hard to note if a post gets buried so quickly it never gets seen

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, it’s the opposite of that - our framework is things happening- that’s what we perceive. God’s is being. God is fully who he is, his will has no beginning or end. From that perspective the notion of the beginning and end of creation is also meaningless- those things are part of our experience, not God’s.

The point is that a timeless being has no means of sequencing its actions. It cannot will things but it has no mechanism to change it's mind--unless it wills only once/statically. (Even once implies a change which cannot be in a timeless system.)

I've enjoyed this conversation (and I hope you did, too), but I'm gonna bow out now--at least on this particular train of thought.

I want you to know that I was a Christian for 44 years. In my last years as a Christian, I gave considerable thought to this subject. I hope you take from our exchange that you're asserting what simply cannot be known, i.e., that a timeless being could even be. And you assert a god simply wills action. I've rejoined that such a thing is inconceivable. In my life, such things, like creation ex nihilo, if inconceivable are meaningless assertions and simply aren't worthy of our time.

If something can't be shown, it can't be known.

 

[createdtoworship]

[emphasis added]
You can assert that and it even follows the rules of grammar, but it doesn't mean anything. How, exactly or even approximately, does this work? We cannot conceive of it. Ergo, these words are meaningless. How does a being outside time will one thing and then another without time? How could one willing be subsequent to another?

If all things a timeless being does is simultaneous then that being never does anything at all. It's all done. Your god goes from dynamic-energetic-personal being to a static blob--a Tillichian "ground of being"--a thing so simple it isn't even nothing. Thus is Christianity stripped of its quiddity.

you speak as a being inside of time. Someone outside of time sees yesterday the same as tomorrow. It's not that one thing happens and then another, is that I believe it's all happening simultaneously. But I could be wrong, I don't know first hand what it's like to be outside of time, and neither do you I presume. But time is to be looked at as a limitation.

 

[createdtoworship]

This would mean that my soul doesn't have a beginning, and therefore God didn't create it.

If you put an object into a timeless domain, when they get there, they still remember the past. But in a way there is in fact a beginning to their timelessness because they were put there from outside of timelessness. I don't see a difficulty with this.

 

[Tom 1]

The point is that a timeless being has no means of sequencing its actions. It cannot will things but it has no mechanism to change it's mind--unless it wills only once/statically. (Even once implies a change which cannot be in a timeless system.)

I've enjoyed this conversation (and I hope you did, too), but I'm gonna bow out now--at least on this particular train of thought.

I want you to know that I was a Christian for 44 years. In my last years as a Christian, I gave considerable thought to this subject. I hope you take from our exchange that you're asserting what simply cannot be known, i.e., that a timeless being could even be. And you assert a god simply wills action. I've rejoined that such a thing is inconceivable. In my life, such things, like creation ex nihilo, if inconceivable are meaningless assertions and simply aren't worthy of our time.

If something can't be shown, it can't be known.

Yes, it’s certainly interesting for me to discuss this kind of thing. I’m posting about what I think, how I picture or conceptualise things I believe to be true. What I mean is not really will as desire, want or command as such but the living god-ness of God, his nature being absolute - fully and completely who he is in every way, an unadulterated reality of fully being - and the aspect of his being that manifests in other things coming to be. Those things only have a beginning and end from their own perspective, not from God’s, as those ideas have no meaning from any perspective other than that of things that are time bound. That’s just how I see it, obviously I can’t say I know that to be true.

 

[gaara4158]

never heard of that argument, that because their is finite time, there is a God.

It’s the gist of kalam cosmological arguments.

 

[HitchSlap]

This passage from psalm 32 illustrates a theme in the bible quite well, that comes up repeatedly. There are carrot and stick moments blended with the overall theme expressed here:

“You said to me, “I will point out the road that you should follow. I will be your teacher and watch over you. Don't be stupid like horses and mules that must be led with ropes to make them obey.””
‭‭
The bible describes death as ‘the wages’ of sin. It’s difficult to explain fully how I understand it, as in the whole picture, taking the different ideas relevant to his than can be found in the bible, in a post, but the ends as expressed in heaven and hell are pictured as the ultimate destination of paths we take or choose to stay on. What exactly is meant is hard to define, I think, what is meant by heaven and hell I mean.

Sure, so would you be happy in heaven knowing you have loved ones in hell?

 

[Tom 1]

Sure, so would you be happy in heaven knowing you have loved ones in hell?

I don't think that eternal punishment is an actual thing. I spent most of my early time on the bible focused on what it says about how we should live, only later starting to take a closer look at it one bit at a time, and I haven't got to that topic yet in any detail. What I have found is that much of what is expressed is conceptual and incomplete, more of a framework than a comprehensive point by point, categorical description of the ideas it contains. There's an lot of empty space, as in Abraham's story, for example.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't think that eternal punishment is an actual thing.

Eternal hell is part & parcel of traditional Christianity.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

[Tom 1]

Eternal hell is part & parcel of traditional Christianity.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

No, there's more debate about it than you might think. But it's a long, time-consuming study.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

another one:

Most of what we know (as individuals) about reality are NOT proved. Rather, they are Inferences to a Reasonable Explanation, or Inferences to a Rational Explanation.


And we are Rational (and logical) in subscribing to such beliefs (even if we cannot prove them to be absolutely true) based on the fact that they are Inferences to a Reasonable Explanation.





Similarly (the inference to God is Logical)





Similarly, the inference to God is an Inference to a Reasonable Explanation, and an inference to a Rational Explanation based on the evidence (see further below).

---


It is true that we do not have absolute proof of the existence of God (because God has chosen to remain Partially Hidden, NOT wholly Hidden, but partially Hidden for the period of our temporary existence on earth (to give us the free-will to make choices for good or evil, to give us the freedom to co-create ourselves into the kind of creatures that would be Heaven to be with for eternity, or Hell to be with for eternity).


True love is not possible without free-will, and the freedom to choose our destiny. And similarly, true character is not possible without free-will, and the freedom to choose our destiny. And God chooses to remain Partially Hidden in order to gives us the freedom to choose our character, to develop our character for good or for evil, and to choose our eternal destiny (as one that will match the character we have chosen to develop).


However, as we have seen above, we do NOT have to have absolute Proof of something to be rational (and logical) in believing that that something is true (see the examples I listed above).

---


In addition, God is NOT completely Hidden.


He has provided evidence for his existence for anyone who seeks him with Sincerity, Humility and Perseverance (because God is looking for such kinds of people to be his adopted children for eternity). See below.





Rational (and Logical) Evidence for God





If we consider Theism and Atheism to be metaphysical hypotheses (explanations of reality) then we can use the relevant guidelines/ methods to come to a reasonable inference to choose between the two.


There are certain features about reality that make more sense (or flow more naturally from) a Theistic Worldview than from an Atheistic Worldview.


And there is a reasonable argument for the existence of God from the wonder and order of the natural universe.


The key areas of evidence (features about reality) that struck me are:


(1) The big bang origin of the universe (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)


(2) The anthropic fine-tuning of the universe/physical constants of the universe for life to exist (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)


(3) The origin of first-life defies random-chance and natural law (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)


(4) The presence of codes, language, and software in DNA is more in keeping with Intelligent Design than with purely naturalistic-atheistic processes. (more to be expected a-priori if Theism were true than Atheism)


(5) Free-will, moral obligations and responsibility; all of these fall apart if atheism is true (atheism expects pure materialism/physicalism which necessitates determinism, which eliminates free-will, and therefore moral obligations and responsibility; but none of us and no society can live reasonably in a manner consistent with no free-will, no moral obligations, no moral responsibilities, no rewards for good behavior, no punishments for bad behavior, no civil laws, no criminal laws, no justice system).


(6) Mind, consciousness; These flow naturally (are more to be expected) if Theism is true. However, these do not naturally obtain if atheism (physicalism/materialism) is true. Mind, consciousness have properties that are completely different from mere collections of atoms.


(7) Out of Body Experiences -- where the person's consciousness experiences a change in location (in point of view) and the person sees things at a distance from their body (where there is no line-of-sight). and these things that they saw (events they saw) are independently confirmed by an external third party or parties. This is evidence for mind-body dualism (and against mind-brain monism). And again, this is more in keeping with Theism (it matches more closely with the expectations of theism; and does not match the materialistic/physicalistic expectations of atheism)...


These (above) are some (but not all) of the things that I looked into in some detail, and which convinced me (over time) that Theism is the more rational (and logical) view (based on the evidence) than Atheism... and that the evidence (as above) supports Theism over Atheism.

from same book

again we can talk about any of this stuff. I don't agree with all of it, but some of it.

I just love a good Gish Gallop. It’s a great way for me to point people on the fence about religion to all the bad arguments in one post. It definitely makes things easier...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

DP

 

[Moral Orel]

If you put an object into a timeless domain, when they get there, they still remember the past. But in a way there is in fact a beginning to their timelessness because they were put there from outside of timelessness. I don't see a difficulty with this.

If something has a beginning then it isn't eternal. You can't say anything with respect to time about an eternal thing.

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s the gist of kalam cosmological arguments.

I have been using other ways to support the cosmological argument, not the kalam. Interesting.

 

[createdtoworship]

If something has a beginning then it isn't eternal. You can't say anything with respect to time about an eternal thing.

you cannot place time restrictions on a timelessness. We all existed in the mind of God prior to being created. But I look at it as placing a body into timelessness, it existed before that point. It would not be a beginning as we know, because we are in time. But it would be a beginning of sorts.

 

[createdtoworship]

I just love a good Gish Gallop. It’s a great way for me to point people on the fence about religion to all the bad arguments in one post. It definitely makes things easier...

that is just an ad hominem. If you can't reply, just say you can't reply. then move to the next one. At least that is respectable. Don't waste our time with insults. And just so you know, the author was an atheist scientist, and these are some of the arguments that converted him to christianity. Like CS lewis, anthony flew, and hundreds of other great intellectuals.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, there's more debate about it than you might think. But it's along, time-consuming study.

I'm a former Christian of over thirty years, I get it. A non-eternal hell is relatively new within American evangelical Christianity.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm a former Christian of over thirty years, I get it. A non-eternal hell is relatively new within American evangelical Christianity.

Yes, not old In Christianity/Judaism as a whole though, as in there isn’t a coherent idea that matches all of the references to an afterlife.

 

[bhsmte]

No, there's more debate about it than you might think. But it's a long, time-consuming study.

Scripture is pretty clear, if you dont believe the story, you are in trouble.

Now, as time has gone on and many christians have not been able to reconcile this god who loves all, with this thought of punishing if you dont fall in line, has caused some christians, to ignore for morality reasons.

I have long said, any theology, that condems 2/3 of the worlds population for believing the wrong theology or not believing at all, is a morally bankrupt theology.

 

[Tom 1]

Scripture is pretty clear, if you dont believe the story, you are in trouble.

Now, as time has gone on and many christians have not been able to reconcile this god who loves all, with this thought of punishing if you dont fall in line, has caused some christians, to ignore for morality reasons.

I have long said, any theology, that condems 2/3 of the worlds population for believing the wrong theology or not believing at all, is a morally bankrupt theology.

What seems clear, in translation and from a modern mindset, quickly becomes unclear once you start taking a more thorough look at it, then becomes clearer again, albeit different, once you have spent the time to study the language used and what it meant to people at the time, and what it means in relation to other relevant material.