"proofs" and "disproofs" of God's existence

[Plecto]

I hope this thread doesn't get to be a faliure.

Please post "proofs" and "disproofs" of God's existence, about whether god made man or man made god and about religion. This is not a place to quote eachother or try to disproove the proofs, if you do... the thread would be endless

Ill start with some reasons to not believe in God.

There is no reason to believe in a God. People may say that they have gotten presonal evidence from God himselves, but then I wonder why this only happens to people in sertain contries? In for example the USA, children grow up to believe in a God, and it is hard to chake this off when they grow up. I think it is really strange that God only gives proof to people in some contries, this would in that case be different treatment from God's side.

There is no evidence of an all-mighty God. There is so many believers and religion is a so huge part of our world and still there is noone that can provide evidence. This is sertainly not supporting the fact that there is a God...

Religion occurs in countries and to people who is poor or sad. This showes that faith is a trust (to people who need it). This is very good, I agree, but this only support that man made God to serve himself.

This earth have seen ton's of different supernatural beeings and gods. They have by time beeing abandon and looked apon as myths and mythologies, there is few out there that believs in them now. So why believe in the ones that are today? All of them can't be right so why shoud anyone be? We are all atheists when it comes to all the creatures the planet have seen, i just believe that there is someone that takes it one God further.

Science evolves and since its hard to contrivict it (because its backed with evidence), faith is changed to support sciense. This also support that man made god. Many of the anicent God's has been disproven by science and left off. For example the nothern mythology God Thor. People truly believed (as sertain as the religion today) that Thor made thunder when he slammed his hammer. Sciense now know what the reason for thunder is and has truly dissproven Thor, Thor was made by man. Don't you think that people in a thousand years (if we live that long ) would point to the God we have today and laugh? "Don't blame them, they didn't know any better).

Another thing that matches "man made god" theory; God is a man. If someone would make a God, why a woman? Women are weak, it have to be a man (women were highly discrimmenated in the early days you know).

 

[Catholicism]

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[Catholicism]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.


On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

 

[tcampen]

There is no "proof" of the existence of God in the empiracle sense because of the nature of God. When we talk about the supernatural, it seems foolish to use logic, reason, science, and the like to try to prove or disprove anything to do with it. The foundation of any God (or Gods) is faith. The opposite of faith is certainty. Proof might provide certainty, but then would eliminate any need for faith - and then where would God be?

I say let faith reign over the issue of the supernatural, and proof over the natural.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. ..

I can see that you are trying to be very logical and I dearly admire that. But in this part of what you have posted, and thus most of the rest, you have overlooked one small logical concern.

You define God (in this one part) as "infinite goodness". This is a common statement but is not actually historically a true statement nor is it a good substitution for the following reason.

By what means do you determine what is "good" and thus what would have the infinite quality of it? You mention what Socrates could piece together properly, but Socrates could only see that "good" was whatever all men want for. This problem with this is that all men don't want for anything specific and thus that definition standard would directly imply that "good" doesn't exist except as a personal reference. This would then lead to the conclusion that God would merely be the infinite representation of whatever a person wanted.

The obvious problem is that God is reported to be all-seeing, all-mighty, and all knowing and most importantly "never changing".

But the more basic problem is in the definition of "good". I can well understand why Socrates had a problem with this as still today science and most of the Earth can't get it right.

Good is what leads you to your goal. The obvious question is "what is a man's goal?" Most would claim that men have different goals so the question is modified to mean a man's highest priority or "top goal" or most fundamental goal.

But even in this many would argue that they have different highest priorities. What Jesus and many before him tried to explain was that in fact every living thing has the exact same highest priority or fundamental goal. Now without proving that just yet, this idea would mean that "good" is determined by what leads a man to that one top priority of all living things.

If it is accepted that all life does indeed have the same actual abstract goal, then we have a definition for "good" which would carry some meaning. The problem now of course is determining exactly what that single higher goal is and thus being able to determine what really is good and what isn't. For many thousands of years the concept of Heaven was that goal. But unfortunately for man, he had the wrong concept and never realized it until he discovered that he could not hold onto the Heaven he had in mind.

Jesus taught to pray that it be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. The problem was that he didn’t explain exactly how that is. To “pray” is to seek. You would think that the first thing they would have done was to seek exactly how Heaven must be. But if they did, they certainly didn’t do a very good job of it. They merely assumed that Heaven was a place without war or bad feelings – Peace and tranquility. That is NOT what God real Heaven is about but rather only its foundation. The building and dance within are an entirely different matter which they never sought to discover. Thus the Western Governance has given up on what the religions taught and defaulted to whatever seems to keep them stronger than the other guy.

If you ask around today about what the common top priority of all men is, you will not get a meaningful answer. This would be the same question as "What is the purpose of life?"

That question has a very real answer, but I find it difficult to convey so I don't preach it. But without that answer, "good" has nothing but a relative association to what a man might desire at any one moment. And appears as arbitrary and free to toy with.

You have not logically defined what is "good" and thus the statement that God is the infinite representation of it is meaningless.

The reality is that God, the Holy Spirit, and man all have one unique purpose which can not be defied and most certainly will occur regardless of all you might attempt or dream.

I can see that science is actually on the verge of discovering that fact which, as you can imagine, will create a very hard 180-degree paradigm change in all that the priests of science are teaching and doing.

I am hoping that Christianity will be the ones who present the truth of it to them because this will very quickly repair the condition of the entire Earth of war and woe.

 

[Asimov]

P1. Asimov does not believe in God.
P2. Asimov is reeeeeallly freakin smart.
P3. I mean really freakin smart.

C. God does not exist.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

P1. Asimov does not believe in God.
P2. Asimov is reeeeeallly freakin smart.
P3. I mean really freakin smart.

C. God does not exist.

P1. Jesus believed in God
P2. Jesus was reeeeeally freakin smarter than Asimov
P3. I mean really freakin smarter.

C. God must exist.

 

[Asimov]

P1. Jesus believed in God
P2. Jesus was reeeeeally freakin smarter than Asimov
P3. I mean really freakin smarter.

C. God must exist.

Not likely...

 

[Blackguard_]

P1 St. Augustine believed in God
P2. St. Augustine was reeeeeallly freakin smarter than Asimov.
P3. I mean really freakin smarter.

C. God does exist.



oh and Ockham's Razor on existence, "Goddidit" is a much simpler working theory than "horribly convoluted equation that 3 people kinda-sorta understand did it".

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Not really intending to merely argue, but it seems in this post there are very many loopholes in the reasoning process..

There is no "proof" of the existence of God in the empiracle sense because of the nature of God.

What is the definitive nature of God?

When we talk about the supernatural, it seems foolish to use logic, reason, science, and the like to try to prove or disprove anything to do with it.

If you look more closely, science proves the existence of the supernatural. They only quibble about its potential. "Supernatural" means "unseen forces" (look it up). All forms of magic require something to be hidden, else the magic is deemed a method of science or natural consequence. As long as anything goes unseen yet has affect, then it is supernatural. No one can ever be in a position to truly see all things, thus the supernatural can never be avoided.

The foundation of any God (or Gods) is faith.

I disagree, do you have a source for this statement? The real God exists regardless of anyone's faith or belief in God and existed before there was anyone to have such faith.

The opposite of faith is certainty.

The opposite of faith is UN-certainty - having doubt. Faith is holding to a plan even when there is no apparent evidence to prove the plan is viable. The opposite of faith is doubt and recalcitrance.

Proof might provide certainty, but then would eliminate any need for faith - and then where would God be?

The scriptures state that God prefers certain knowledge of Him (as in understanding Him) rather than mere blind worship. Faith is for only those times when evidence is not forthcoming. It is NOT a substitution for understanding. To be void of understanding is to attempt to live in total ignorance and certainly a sin against the Holy Spirit propelling man into enlightenment. Faith is the backstop, not the goal.

I say let faith reign over the issue of the supernatural, and proof over the natural.

I say to seek a very, very clear understanding of Jesus BEFORE you stand in his name and preach. Fore to stand in his name falsely (even by accident) is to bring fallacy to his name. Have you come to care so little for Him that you would do this?

 

[michabo]

The most concise and complete list is here:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm


I've seen a handful of different "proofs" (haha, I know, it's hard to use that word and keep a straight face) for God.

1. Prime Mover: all reactions need a cause. Imply that all motion is a reaction and therefore needs a cause. Claim there must be an uncaused cause (and hope people ignore the fact that not everything needs a cause). Let's call it God and use bait-and-switch to hope people confuse this with the God of the Bible

2. Moral Law Giver: most people don't kill. Claim that all people don't like to kill (even if their actions or words demonstrate otherwise). Claim that no natural explaination could exist. Let's call this moral law giver God, and use the previous bait-and-switch

3. Fine Tuning/Anthropological: the Universe is perfectly tuned to support humans. Pretend that humans didn't evolve in this universe and so are tuned to it. Pretend humans are the end-goal of the whole Universe. Claim that this fine-tuning can not exist without a fine tuner. Call this fine tuner "God", and use the above bait-and-switch...

4. Transcendental Argument: claim that everything which exists in thought must exist in reality. Claim we can conceive of perfection (even if no one can agree on what this means) and that a perfect being is more perfect if real than just imaginary. Poof, perfect being exists. Call this God. Bait-and-switch...

(Strangely the perfect pizza, which would exist in my fridge, doesn't appear so readily)

5. Personal Revelation. I feel ooey-gooey inside when I go to church. Endorphins don't seem fitting enough. Call this ooey-gooey feeling giver "God". Bait-and-switch...

6. Prophesy. "On the seventh day the horned serpent encloaked in lambs blood shall swoop on the flock and the everlasting gates shall fall" clearly fortells 9/11, therefore God.

7. Jesus. A guy in a book said he was God, therefore God.


I think I'm missing a couple, but those are the big ones that I see in debates or in talking with Christians. Hope they help.

 

[JonF]

This was always one of my favs (not claiming it’s valid)

1) God by definition is a being perfect in all his attributes.
2) One of these attributes (by def) is goodness.
3) Something is better if it exist.
4) Since God has perfect goodness he has what is best.
--------------
Thus by definition God exist.

 

[tcampen]

Not really intending to merely argue, but it seems in this post there are very many loopholes in the reasoning process..
What is the definitive nature of God? [/quote)

God is supernatural.

If you look more closely, science proves the existence of the supernatural. They only quibble about its potential. "Supernatural" means "unseen forces" (look it up).

Not really - here's from Webster's Dictionary. It means a lot more than just "unseen" forces. And I tried looking up scientific confirmation of anything supernatural, and couldn't find it. Oh, and could you please direct me to a legitimate scientific source for science proving the supernatural?


Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

The opposite of faith is UN-certainty - having doubt. Faith is holding to a plan even when there is no apparent evidence to prove the plan is viable. The opposite of faith is doubt and recalcitrance.

Faith provides the ability to not have doubt despite the lack of certainty. But faith is still the opposite of certainty - at least thats what I get from a number of christian theologians.

The scriptures state that God prefers certain knowledge of Him (as in understanding Him) rather than mere blind worship. Faith is for only those times when evidence is not forthcoming. It is NOT a substitution for understanding. To be void of understanding is to attempt to live in total ignorance and certainly a sin against the Holy Spirit propelling man into enlightenment. Faith is the backstop, not the goal.

Yet faith is critical to address some of the most important questions, such as the trinity, omnipotence, creation, eternity, and even salvation itself. The "objective" data by no means has an objective interpretation when it comes to God. Everything is shaped by faith - it is more than a backstop, it is the entire foundation.

I say to seek a very, very clear understanding of Jesus BEFORE you stand in his name and preach. Fore to stand in his name falsely (even by accident) is to bring fallacy to his name. Have you come to care so little for Him that you would do this?

I have a clear understanding of the stories of Jesus, and the theology of so many who worship him. And while I believe in the man Jesus, I have not found the evidence to be close to compelling enough to justify a belief in the supernatural qualities attributed to him. However, if one chooses to have faith such things actually happened and a particular meaning behind it, then who am I to stand in the way of that?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Rather than defend against what I can see is merely misunderstandings of what is being worded, let me say this instead...

Is magic even magical to the magician? Is a miracle even a miracle to God? When is something a miracle versus a scientific principle?

Let’s say that you had a means of going back in time and preventing one single question from being asked until today. You go back to the time of Newton and prevent the thoughts concerning gravity from ever being asked or thought about, but somehow all else remains exactly as history unfolded.

So today, in this scenario, science has all of the same understanding that it truly has today except that of gravity of which no one has thought to inquire. But today, as science and religion struggle for glory in the eyes of the population, every question conceivable is asked. Your spell of preventing that question is broken and the question comes to light – “Why do things fall to Earth?” a young man innocently asks on public TV.

Very quickly, as you could imagine, science scrambles for an explanation so as to not lose face. The religions simply declare that things fall to Earth because God has gifted His children with protection from the angels in Heaven and it is a sin to try to understand the ways of God.

Science performs experiments and eventually derives all of the exact same understanding they yield to the population today. They explain that gravity is merely a principle of mass attraction, but do not explain why mass attracts.

The thousands of people who become involved in the question are not satisfied with merely declaring that mass attracts by some measurable principle. They want an answer to why it attracts by any pattern or principle. Saying merely that it does it and not answering why it does it is not good enough.

Science hangs their head in defeat in the battle for domination of popular acceptance as they declare that they do not yet know. The churches smile as they have embarrassed science with a miracle from God which science cannot sufficiently explain.

But look at the real difference between the two stories of real history and this scenario. Even though by the end of each scenario the exact same information and understanding was known to all, by merely delaying a question until a timely moment, what is accepted as a principle of science today and of no particular concern to the public becomes proof of the miracles of God and the justification of the church.

So what is a miracle really? When is it an act of God versus a principle of science if by merely delaying the questioning of it, it can change from one to the other?

-------------------

I tell you that you have a MISunderstanding as to when to apply love, when to apply faith, when to apply prayer, and most significantly when to apply glorification. When did Jesus ever say, “Glorify and make mystery of my name and be saved”?

The Holy Spirit is the LIGHT, not the darkness in the unknown.

In the very real Kingdom of God, the use of unneeded faith due to the availability of certain sight is not taught, not accepted, and not tolerated. They who seek glory and mysticism in place of understanding shall know shame and if not willing to return to the exact teachings of Jesus without glorification, shall be brought low even to breaking and if still not willing to open their eyes and have courage in their hearts, shall be utterly dismissed from the Holy Spirit and from all of the Earth. All things shall be known.

If it so be that the entirety of Christianity refuses the gift of certain understanding delivered by the Holy Spirit by the example of Jesus, then when Jesus rises again, which He most certainly shall, He will say unto Christianity, “Who are thee who deceived man so as to glorify my name? Certainly they are not of me. Did I not teach to give sight? Did I not teach to clarify the footing of men? What everlasting hope can there be in mystery and ignorance? Did I not teach you that I was the truth and the light, thereby void of the father of deception and darkness? Look at what you have done to my name before the eyes of those who were given eyes and sight that they could not deny.

Glorification is luster and lust. They who seek its luster for sake of its power to bring passion, shall be shamed and be known for their darkness and selfish lust. Fore this is and has always been the way of the Holy Spirit within which darkness and deception cannot be tolerated.

Hold to faith when sight is confounded and understanding is void or broken, but at no other time is faith a proper shield from evil, fore to pray is to seek the light which is to be always your spirit. Have faith in the seeking, not faith in blindness.

The Holy Spirit itself gave Science unto man. It was given outside of the churches who insisted on the apostle of glory and blindness when there was such greater need for light and understanding of all things. Like children rushing into battle with the sword and shield of love and faith leaving their armor of understanding behind, the religions have fought. Thus was given unto man that which carries armor and stands against every sword and brushes aside every shield. But he too shall learn of humility and the true significance of love and faith.

Humility was the first and shall be the last test of all of mankind and every soul within. I suggest you begin to study its significance. Because even if by the presence of God, mankind could not listen and learn and thus be dismissed entirely, the Holy Spirit would continue without him and find a more suited host. But among the volume of man, there are those who open their eyes and the grace of God is great before them and within them no matter how meek or lonely, the Holy Spirit will always rise to answer their need and to their reign.

 

[Im_A]

i have problems with hoping to prove God because it takes a biased mind to see the speculation (whether it be "divine revelation", circumstances, words of the saints, authors of the books of revelation/whether it be Christianity or any other religion, deductive reasoning through science or personal testimony/conviction, or the good in this place that God created, or for the simple fact of all the religions...no matter how ancient they are) as proof. if one isn't biased, then one will not see this as proof, but if one is biased, then one will see this as proof. that's nothing of concrete proof.

but then again, i see reason to have faith, because of these things and hence many reason why i do believe that God does exist, but again this is reasoning through faith, through biased beliefs. i will never provide these things as emperical evidence, just as speculative reasonings.

i think faith and concrete evidence are two different things. i think it is wise to distinguish between the two as best as we can.

depends what one is seaching for. if one was looking for faith, then all the pointless discussions everywhere debating the existence of God would be of fruit. but if one is looking for evidence, then all the pointless discussions everywhere debating the existence of God will remain what they are...fruitless.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

[FONT=&quot]

...

Faith is not ignoring evidence but ignoring confusion of evidence.

Evidence is an indicator of a possible truth (consistency within reality).

When enough clear evidence (unconfused) is seen, the mind accepts it on a probability basis - "This is probably true. I see no conflict of any significance. Therefore I accept it."

Once anything becomes accepted, it becomes part of the framework for accepting anything else. This begins the building of a more complete axiomatical understanding of anything in your surrounding that might have affect.

If the mind manages to make serious progress toward a complete understanding of all around it, then the acceptance level (probability) of being right and thus the resistance to accept anything else, rises and this becomes your foundation of understanding.

The questioning and debating process challenges your pre-accepted thoughts so as to either break the construct due to unanswered questions, or more complete the construct due to having nothing that seems to conflict with what has been accepted.

What you are calling "bias" is merely the effect of viewing new evidence based on the acceptance of prior evidence. This always MUST be done. Many take the route of accepting that all prior evidence should be deleted so that new axioms can start fresh. But even this requires the acceptance of the evidence that this action is what is needed. That acceptance comes from the evidence of too much confusion from too many seeming significant unanswered questions.

Thus to change a mind's perspective, convert to the new way or religion, or simply to clean up a confounded mind, the questioning and debating process is essential.

The "blind faith" concept is that of ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary of what has already been accepted. Those who believe in truly blind faith should never engage in debate or questioning of any kind. Nor should they allow themselves to ever be exposed to the sight of anything appearing as a need or strong desire which might conflict with their prior acceptance.

The faith spoken of by Jesus was not the blind faith type at all. Blind faith was adopted by a variety of churches so as to hold onto influence.

The Jesus type of faith was that of holding to a plan for the future in the times of confusion. It had nothing to do with ignoring clear evidence contrary to what had been already accepted. Jesus had no fear of actual truth nor any clear evidence of its accuracy. Science is actually a form of Jesus' original spirit. As was noted in scriptures, if there are 2 (independent) witnesses and no substantial evidence to the contrary, then it is safe to accept the idea. This assumes that there are not even more contradicting witnesses of course.

Jesus was a serious advocate of using ALL of your mind and instincts to discern what is true or not. The faith he was talking about was the faith in doing only that. The mind can do no better than that.

Within the combination of the entirety of your mind is the ability and effort of what is labeled the "Holy Spirit". That spirit (effort) attempts to balance every possible bit of evidence toward ensuring the highest probability of success, thus leads the mind (and hopefully the hosting body) to the most consistent and reliable truth.

The mind was designed from the DNA up just to do that one thing.

Reasoning and logic are only a portion of the constructs accepted by some minds. A logical proof is only a proof to a logical mind, a mind that has accepted the axioms of logic.

Proof is merely substantial acceptable evidence. This evidence might be logically based or based on anything else that a mind has accepted as probably true. "Proof" merely means "substantially convincing beyond any outstanding questions". But this can be arranged 9and must be) by a variety of types of evidence. The questioning and debating process allows for a field of such variety of evidence such that many different mind types can look for which things they can accept and which things trigger important questions un-answered by their current accepted believes.

Although the arguing that you see might seem fruitless to many, it is the process of either changing to something new or confirming (and thus making stronger still) something old.

HAVE FAITH IN ALL THAT YOUR MIND IS CAPABLE OF, NOT MERELY THAT WHICH IT HAS ALREADY BEEN USING.

OPEN YOUR EYES SO AS TO VERIFY THE CLARITY OF WHAT YOU ALREADY SUSPECTED AS REALITY.

HAVE NO FEAR OF TRUTH NOR HOLD TO ANY DESIRE THAT TRUTH MUST BE AS YOU HOPED.

This is the way of the real Holy Spirit. (and always has been)

BUT on the other hand...

INGEST NO MORE THAN YOU CAN DIGEST or refuse..
This means that there is an optimal limit to the amount of exposure to chaos and confusion that you can take. Heat can warm the body, but too much burns the body. The same is true of the mind. Too much confusion can destroy the mind beyond repair. Thus limit your eyes in the amount of new confusion your mind must sort out. Limit your eyes based on what your understanding can handle yet allow new growth. Limit your understanding to that which has potential affect by the degree of affect it posses. Limit your influence (the affect with which you counter) to what your mind can track.

You consist of your AWARENESS, your UNDERSTANDING (including the subconscious spiritual responses and instincts), and your INFLUENCE. Optimize each as to their limits, allowing new growth, but not overwhelmed.

Do these things and you will become grow to become the Holy Spirit incarnate.
[/FONT]

 

[TeddyKGB]

4. Transcendental Argument: claim that everything which exists in thought must exist in reality. Claim we can conceive of perfection (even if no one can agree on what this means) and that a perfect being is more perfect if real than just imaginary. Poof, perfect being exists. Call this God. Bait-and-switch...

That's Anselm's Ontological Argument. The Transcendental Argument states that logic/knowledge/morality require 'preconditions' only present in the Christian God.

(Strangely the perfect pizza, which would exist in my fridge, doesn't appear so readily)

Also known as Gaunilo's Island.

 

[Im_A]

[FONT=&quot]Faith is not ignoring evidence but ignoring confusion of evidence.

Evidence is an indicator of a possible truth (consistency within reality).

When enough clear evidence (unconfused) is seen, the mind accepts it on a probability basis - "This is probably true. I see no conflict of any significance. Therefore I accept it."

Once anything becomes accepted, it becomes part of the framework for accepting anything else. This begins the building of a more complete axiomatical understanding of anything in your surrounding that might have affect.

If the mind manages to make serious progress toward a complete understanding of all around it, then the acceptance level (probability) of being right and thus the resistance to accept anything else, rises and this becomes your foundation of understanding.

The questioning and debating process challenges your pre-accepted thoughts so as to either break the construct due to unanswered questions, or more complete the construct due to having nothing that seems to conflict with what has been accepted.

What you are calling "bias" is merely the effect of viewing new evidence based on the acceptance of prior evidence. This always MUST be done. Many take the route of accepting that all prior evidence should be deleted so that new axioms can start fresh. But even this requires the acceptance of the evidence that this action is what is needed. That acceptance comes from the evidence of too much confusion from too many seeming significant unanswered questions.

Thus to change a mind's perspective, convert to the new way or religion, or simply to clean up a confounded mind, the questioning and debating process is essential.

The "blind faith" concept is that of ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary of what has already been accepted. Those who believe in truly blind faith should never engage in debate or questioning of any kind. Nor should they allow themselves to ever be exposed to the sight of anything appearing as a need or strong desire which might conflict with their prior acceptance.

The faith spoken of by Jesus was not the blind faith type at all. Blind faith was adopted by a variety of churches so as to hold onto influence.

The Jesus type of faith was that of holding to a plan for the future in the times of confusion. It had nothing to do with ignoring clear evidence contrary to what had been already accepted. Jesus had no fear of actual truth nor any clear evidence of its accuracy. Science is actually a form of Jesus' original spirit. As was noted in scriptures, if there are 2 (independent) witnesses and no substantial evidence to the contrary, then it is safe to accept the idea. This assumes that there are not even more contradicting witnesses of course.

Jesus was a serious advocate of using ALL of your mind and instincts to discern what is true or not. The faith he was talking about was the faith in doing only that. The mind can do no better than that.

Within the combination of the entirety of your mind is the ability and effort of what is labeled the "Holy Spirit". That spirit (effort) attempts to balance every possible bit of evidence toward ensuring the highest probability of success, thus leads the mind (and hopefully the hosting body) to the most consistent and reliable truth.

The mind was designed from the DNA up just to do that one thing.

Reasoning and logic are only a portion of the constructs accepted by some minds. A logical proof is only a proof to a logical mind, a mind that has accepted the axioms of logic.

Proof is merely substantial acceptable evidence. This evidence might be logically based or based on anything else that a mind has accepted as probably true. "Proof" merely means "substantially convincing beyond any outstanding questions". But this can be arranged 9and must be) by a variety of types of evidence. The questioning and debating process allows for a field of such variety of evidence such that many different mind types can look for which things they can accept and which things trigger important questions un-answered by their current accepted believes.

Although the arguing that you see might seem fruitless to many, it is the process of either changing to something new or confirming (and thus making stronger still) something old.

HAVE FAITH IN ALL THAT YOUR MIND IS CAPABLE OF, NOT MERELY THAT WHICH IT HAS ALREADY BEEN USING.

OPEN YOUR EYES SO AS TO VERIFY THE CLARITY OF WHAT YOU ALREADY SUSPECTED AS REALITY.

HAVE NO FEAR OF TRUTH NOR HOLD TO ANY DESIRE THAT TRUTH MUST BE AS YOU HOPED.

This is the way of the real Holy Spirit. (and always has been)

BUT on the other hand...

INGEST NO MORE THAN YOU CAN DIGEST or refuse..
This means that there is an optimal limit to the amount of exposure to chaos and confusion that you can take. Heat can warm the body, but too much burns the body. The same is true of the mind. Too much confusion can destroy the mind beyond repair. Thus limit your eyes in the amount of new confusion your mind must sort out. Limit your eyes based on what your understanding can handle yet allow new growth. Limit your understanding to that which has potential affect by the degree of affect it posses. Limit your influence (the affect with which you counter) to what your mind can track.

You consist of your AWARENESS, your UNDERSTANDING (including the subconscious spiritual responses and instincts), and your INFLUENCE. Optimize each as to their limits, allowing new growth, but not overwhelmed.

Do these things and you will become grow to become the Holy Spirit incarnate.
[/FONT]

faith is the lack of reason. there is plenty of reasons to not believe in God. it takes one to believe in the faith, to do what your saying here. and while i can say i do agree with you and this post, the part that i have still hold myself accountability and this right here shows nothing to prove the God that i believe in.

Jesus doesn't prove anything. Paul doesn't prove anything. faith in Him, faith in God proves nothing or in any other saints alive and past. because it takes one to believe in their words to see them as proof of God...specifically Jesus. that's why i think the faith of a child that Christ talks about is very important to some degree. cause faith like a child ignores the confusion that the evidence brings as you mentioned.

i could go on and on why i think it is reasonable to have faith in Jesus, God and all that. then the discussion would be debating about the evidence, not about the credibility of the evidence given from me. i'm offering testimonial evidence...which is not scientific evidence. and even if one would want to play the idea that many Christians experiences are true, so that must be proof, many experience Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, so either one it's a speculative reasoning to think there is a such a being that we call God, or just man made for man's needs.

we all want to think of ourselves as reasonable people. so many will always see their faith as reasonable, logic. cause that's the way of the spirit, in truth.

with faith, it is reasonable and logic to come to those conclusions, but i see more truth in the conclusions that we are all biased, and any kind of argument that we may use, that may be truth in our faith, is selfish evidence to disprove the need for faith to the listener. why else would you say the things you said to me in your response? you have found something to convince yourself, that you put as the Holy Spirit (and it very well could be, and i'm not saying it is not) or it could be your mechanism to believe in God. nevertheless, i put it as another speculative reasoning for the case of God, but nothing of emperical proof, cause there is nothing emperical in nature to that.

and i agree. faith is not ignoring the evidence, and it is ignoring the confusion that the evidence brings. but the questions that the evidence brings can't be ignored, and no Christian has any real answers to those questions. on and on with words of love, Jesus, quoting the Bible, slapping on the term of Holy Spirit to everything, just seem like coys(which i consider debasing the very things used to prove their point when faith is no where in sight in the debate) of authority, but the questions are never answered, and i would be they would go unanswered till either the end of time, or the 2nd coming theories one of them is actually true.

so odd how my response may just be discussion with you cause, i don't try to disprove one's disposition of their perspective of why they believe in God. i just will never be able to agree that, they have given the world emperical proofs, because anyone can prove it to be just speculative reasoning, or faith. and mind you, i don't put faith below reasoning and logic, and critical analysis. faith is a whole different world and level. that's what makes it beautiful and awesome.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

...4. Transcendental Argument: claim that everything which exists in thought must exist in reality. Claim we can conceive of perfection (even if no one can agree on what this means) and that a perfect being is more perfect if real than just imaginary. Poof, perfect being exists. Call this God. Bait-and-switch...

If the concept of "perfect" confuses you...


Perfection - Answering a need without creating more.

No offence, but in your entire post, I see nothing but the lack of any real understanding of reasoning and logic. Interesting that you insist on it, yet have so much trouble with it.

Logical proof is only a proof to the logical.

Proving is actually merely causing a doubtless belief. Logical people have faith in logic and thus will insist on logical proof. There are many other kinds of proof. The problem comes in when they who claim to be logical are in fact not.

Those who seek proof yet cannot truly see logic or reasoning are controlled by their passions. If they have a passion to see only a proof that God does not exist, then they seek and see only that and grasp at every conceivable notion to support their passion.

You ask the Christians to question their faith. Why are you not questioning yours? You claim to have faith in reasoning, yet you do not see the evidence that reasoning brings you. Why are you not questioning your personal reasoning, fore it is most certainly flawed?

 

[OObi]

1. Everything that has a biginning has a cause.

2. The universe had a biginning.

3. The universe had a cause.

It's very simple.

One is true to the point that gravity is true. We can't say for sure... but come on. Everything ever that we have witnessed has had a biginning. Nothing has ever just come into existance. This is being supported constantly by 'things' not just suddenly appearing in front of us. Something has never come out of nothing.
(The reason this can't be proved is because of the metaphysical realm, in other words, the God part)

Since you can only make conclusions based on evidence, the logical conclusion to make is that everything dependent has a cause. Everything else is speculation based on no observations or logic of any kind. (unless of course those speculations are pertaining to the metaphysical realm, the only part of existence that we can't make observations on so we have to speculate about it)

Two is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We know this because of the impossibilty of transversing a infinte amount (I don't know if that has a special name). But... I'll just use the domino analogy. If there is a line of dominos and one of them is black and the rest are red, and the line was infinte, would the black one ever fall. Your question would be "well, where does the line begin?" in which case the line has a biginning. But if you assume that the line is infinite, then you would have to say the black domino never falls because if those red dominos ever got to it, then the line wasn't infinite, meaning it had a biginning. The black domino represents us in the 'present'. The red dominos represent the past of the universe. If you don't get it from here, just ask.

Therefore, having 2 been proven beyond doubt, and 1 being the most logical solution, 3 is true. That cause is God. Now don't get me wrong, at this point in time that cause could be anything supernatural, not neccesarilly God, but it is, and I'll just save that for another day.

Shalom, OObi