20 arguments for the existence of God

[hamashiachagape]

If God is the absolute truth and being then God could not possibly communicate in a way that every human would agree upon since it would be communicating in a vague and mystic sense. Not to mention if God can communicate with humans, it would appear to be less than perfect, since God could not theologically speaking associate with sin, and if humans are sinful, how can God associate or communicate with humans at all?

Knowledge existing in and of itself is not irrational except as you reach and grasp for ultimate meaning in things outside yourself first instead of first looking inward.

2nd sentence is incongruent and the rest falls from there. A part of God's necessary ontological worth is that he is all knowing. Logically anything that exists can be explained by God, and that includes communicating to humans. Christians succeed in this understanding because they believe God created man in the image of God.

Actually if God were to communicate with humans, as I believe the Bible does, it needs to be done so in a perfect manner.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

2nd sentence is incongruent and the rest falls from there. A part of God's necessary ontological worth is that he is all knowing. Logically anything that exists can be explained by God, and that includes communicating to humans. Christians succeed in this understanding because they believe God created man in the image of God.

Actually if God were to communicate with humans, as I believe the Bible does, it needs to be done so in a perfect manner.

The whole image of God thing seems to me to be just anthropomorphic self aggrandizement. "Oh we're so great, the animals are just there to be used or played with, they're less than us, they don't have souls," Silly theology, nothing has a soul, we don't need it, at best we need spirit in some vague sense, but not a soul.


If God were able to communicate in a perfect manner, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, since God could perfectly communicate with everyone without violating their free will. And the Bible's not perfect, since it's been translated probably 100 different ways over time and yet the KJV is somehow superior because it's in Old English, even though it mistranslates words through its own bias?

 

[hamashiachagape]

The whole image of God thing seems to me to be just anthropomorphic self aggrandizement. "Oh we're so great, the animals are just there to be used or played with, they're less than us, they don't have souls," Silly theology, nothing has a soul, we don't need it, at best we need spirit in some vague sense, but not a soul.


If God were able to communicate in a perfect manner, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, since God could perfectly communicate with everyone without violating their free will. And the Bible's not perfect, since it's been translated probably 100 different ways over time and yet the KJV is somehow superior because it's in Old English, even though it mistranslates words through its own bias?

Why don't we need a soul? There is plenty of evidence for a soul. See here - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hmosoul.html

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'd actually recommend this resource to anyone. He helped me out when I was in a period of a lot of trouble with my understanding of God.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I seriously doubt arguments that are already biased to prove themselves and already assume the end conclusions could put forth a genuine argument that we have a soul in any sense that is permanent, and if we have anything like a soul now, that it doesn't degrade and dissipate

 

[hamashiachagape]

Also see here - Moral Philosophy 1

Christian Philosophy 1

 

[hamashiachagape]

I seriously doubt arguments that are already biased to prove themselves and already assume the end conclusions could put forth a genuine argument that we have a soul in any sense that is permanent, and if we have anything like a soul now, that it doesn't degrade and dissipate

Your argument seems a bit biased here. Most Christian Apologists do not assume the conclusion, but look to see where it ends. Dr. Glenn Miller does a good job of investigating information (usually) without preconceiving the end of the argument. I don't advocate all of his information, but it can especially be seen here that his evidence is thoroughly looked at.

Try being open to seeing whether the evidence is valid or not.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Even if one posited a soul, there isn't a universal understanding of that anymore than there is of "God", therefore the issue is less than important overall, seems to me, and hardly makes me feel less or more human to not posit or posit a soul.

 

[hamashiachagape]

LOL

You'd have a point if invisible meant intangible but it doesn't. So both you and Bobby Henderson don't understand the words you are using.

There are other problems. Bobby Henderson declares that the FSM can be everywhere and nowhere. Obviously thats self refuting.

Also the FSM is in a state of flux, change, something that God can not be.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Even if one posited a soul, there isn't a universal understanding of that anymore than there is of "God", therefore the issue is less than important overall, seems to me, and hardly makes me feel less or more human to not posit or posit a soul.

Given your presuppositions, I can see why you would claim this.

A soul is simply more or less a self awareness of who one is. The mind is a part of the soul. Rene Descartes could have been said to have discovered this.

And God has universal attributes that are applicable to all religions. The consensus about God that is posited is that God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. Atheists failure to see these are not the fault of the Theist.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

These definitions are based in a primarily Western understanding, not to mention that there were Western thinkers that proposed pantheism, Spinoza coming to mind. And then we have the further difficulty of the Eastern position of what "God" is, contrasting with the Western view in terms of the nature, even if attributing similar qualities to God.

A similar problem arises with the soul, as to whether it has substance, material existence or is insubstantial and immaterial and is basically just something we can never truly understand even a minute amount about.

 

[hamashiachagape]

So you are now arguing about the origination of the word... which I agreed was greek.

Keep up.

It being greek doesn't make it a philosophy.



Fortunately lil Ravi isn't an authority on language but you've once again appealed to authority.

Atheism originated out of Philosophy, which is my point. You simply have declared a more mythicistic understanding of what it is.

 

[hamashiachagape]

These definitions are based in a primarily Western understanding, not to mention that there were Western thinkers that proposed Pantheism, Spinoza coming to mind. And then we have the further difficulty of the Eastern position of what "God" is, contrasting with the Western view in terms of the nature, even if attributing similar qualities to God.

A similar problem arises with the soul, as to whether it has substance, material existence or is insubstantial and immaterial and is basically just something we can never truly understand even a minute amount about.

As Ravi Zecharias states, "Even in India, we look both ways before crossing the street."

These viewpoints are actually from an Ancient Near East perspective, but also shared within some Greek understanding, which has developed and found its way into the West. ALL traditions and customs of the West are Graeco Roman influenced. By your understanding, you would not be able to refute the God of the Bible because its understanding comes from Jerusalem, which is contrary to the understanding as you would posit to the Greeks.

 

[hamashiachagape]

You will also note that I do not hold to Western understanding. Problematic to this is that I follow in its totality every last word of the Bible which comes out of Jerusalem. Ancient Near East culture.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

As Ravi Zecharias states, "Even in India, we look both ways before crossing the street."

These viewpoints are actually from an Ancient Near East perspective, but also shared within some Greek understanding, which has developed and found its way into the West. ALL traditions and customs of the West are Graeco Roman influenced. By your understanding, you would not be able to refute the God of the Bible because its understanding comes from Jerusalem, which is contrary to the understanding as you would posit to the Greeks.

You cannot automatically assume I have no exposure to a Jewish perspective just because I appear to be based primarily in your so called Greco Roman perspective.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You will also note that I do not hold to Western understanding. Problematic to this is that I follow in its totality every last word of the Bible which comes out of Jerusalem. Ancient Near East culture.

Even Judaism slowly assimilated other ideas, it's hardly perfect or absolutely unique, as much as some of its concepts were unique for the time.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Even Judaism slowly assimilated other ideas, it's hardly perfect or absolutely unique, as much as some of its concepts were unique for the time.

Ancient Near East perspective from the 1st century is much different from the 13th century hellenized understandings promoted by Maimonides. I understand the origins of this, but they come from Europe either way, and not Jerusalem.

 

[hamashiachagape]

You cannot automatically assume I have no exposure to a Jewish perspective just because I appear to be based primarily in your so called Greco Roman perspective.

I don't, but I also don't assume that you can intellectually honestly make a distinguishment between Western and Eastern logic. These viewpoints are just as relevant to the East as they are to the West.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There are degrees of West and East, I would grant, and therefore the whole conversation has myriad forms it could take, considering I adhere to a bit of a mixture of Far East and some Far West philosophy that happen to intersect.

 

[hamashiachagape]

There are degrees of West and East, I would grant, and therefore the whole conversation has myriad forms it could take, considering I adhere to a bit of a mixture of Far East and some Far West philosophy that happen to intersect.

Which is further proof that there is no division between the logic inherent to the discussion.

Logical principles apply to all philosophies, no matter what they may be.