What Convinced you God Exists?

[Mark Quayle]

Wamp: Ok, then why does God blame me for my unbelief?

Mark: Because you have rejected the obvious, and gone your own way. The understanding of the meaning of Creator, is not just intellectual consent, but submission. You have decided not to submit, and use "intellectually unconvinced" for cover. No, you can't hide from God.

Wamp: The problem you are convince that god exist by evidence that you cannot share. Also, God is not willing to show me He exists. So I have no choice but to remain in my unbelief until God or you provide good evidence.

Mark: I don't believe you have no choice. You demand God show you evidence you are willing to accept. Not likely to happen. Meanwhile, he has shown you enough evidence (nature, existence, universe) that reason should make you at least intellectually acquiesce, but you want into the club without even admitting there is a club?

Mark: I am convinced God exists by evidence that is there for all of us, but even more, I am convinced daily of the reality of God by evidence that he uses to give me more confidence in his existence, that is NOT common to all people. THAT evidence is derived by knowing him, not by reasoning about him.

Wamp, re the floor: And I explained why. You have not explained why for God.

Mark: I'm not sure what you are saying --why WHAT, for God? You mean, why I should believe day by day that God exists, and is relevant? Same reason you believe the floor is there. I have all the evidence I need, and now I have habit, to boot (pun not intended).

 

[Mark Quayle]

You suggested we both believe in magic. I'm just trying to ascertain the difference. Where do you think I draw the line, and you keep going?

I don't believe in magic. I believe in First Cause With Intent.

But go ahead --I'll play-- where do you draw the line and I keep going?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I trust my eyes because they have been demonstrated to work for me (not perfectly) on a regular basis. All you are saying here is I believe God exists because I believe God exists.

I believe God exists because it makes more sense to me that he should exist than that I should exist. On top of that, I have come to know him, to the point that there can be no doubt in my mind that he exists. You probably know the song, "He Lives".

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't believe in magic. I believe in First Cause With Intent.

But go ahead --I'll play-- where do you draw the line and I keep going?

You suggested I believe in magic, and I maintain I don't. So, where do you draw the line and I stop at believing in 'magic'?

 

[HitchSlap]

Mark: Because you have rejected the obvious, and gone your own way. The understanding of the meaning of Creator, is not just intellectual consent, but submission. You have decided not to submit, and use "intellectually unconvinced" for cover. No, you can't hide from God.

This is nothing more the textbook definition of projection. Restating what you personally believe, is in no way what others may actually believe. To help you better understand myself (and likely CW), I would ask you to contemplate how you feel, say, about goddess Mama Qucha. Know that we feel about your god as you likely do about Mama Qucha.

To assume another's position, and be wrong, is to miss the point of a conversation. After all, shouldn't the goal of honest interlocution be one of understanding?

Mark: I don't believe you have no choice. You demand God show you evidence you are willing to accept. Not likely to happen. Meanwhile, he has shown you enough evidence (nature, existence, universe) that reason should make you at least intellectually acquiesce, but you want into the club without even admitting there is a club?

Mark: I am convinced God exists by evidence that is there for all of us, but even more, I am convinced daily of the reality of God by evidence that he uses to give me more confidence in his existence, that is NOT common to all people. THAT evidence is derived by knowing him, not by reasoning about him.

At the heart of this particular discussion, is the quality of evidence, and when one should be sufficiently persuaded.

 

[cvanwey]

I believe God exists because it makes more sense to me that he should exist than that I should exist. On top of that, I have come to know him, to the point that there can be no doubt in my mind that he exists. You probably know the song, "He Lives".

Still following your responses, but you did not respond to post #176, at least not yet? Can we now squash the 'first cause' argument, or would you like to discuss further as it is one of the fundamental reasons you believe?

Sounds like the actual reason you believe is because you have "come to know Him"?

Could you give me the best example of how you have "come to know Him"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

You need to demonstrate this not just assert this. How do you know a first cause existed? You are assuming there was nothing at one time. How have you ruled out that there was always something? God always existed correct? Why not the cosmos has always existed instead?

'existed'? Exists. IS. I am assuming no time at all. "Before Abraham was, I AM". If there was 'always something', it was First Cause. I don't assume there was nothing, but nothing other than First Cause, until (I use the tenses and time-related English words, because I have no other way to designate cause-sequence).

Now you are just asserting a first cause was a God. How do you justify that and how do you know what attributes it has?

You are asking for a book-long explanation. Just for starters, though, there is a difference between 'a God' and 'God'. Just saying...

I number these in no particular order, and yes, they all overlap:

1. First Cause can only be one. This seems to me too obvious, but, if there was more than one, they both/all operate under the authority or influence of a common principle --thus neither is first cause, but the principle takes the position.

2. First Cause cannot be mechanical fact. Mechanical fact, such as the mere principle of co-existence, or the one I hear about lately, co-emergence, has no force of causation, without itself being caused. It cannot WILL. It cannot BEGIN TO. Besides that, it can not be self-existent first cause, because it also answers to principles, definitions, from outside itself. Unlike the will of Creator, it may even be falsifiable, and answer to 'form'.

3. First Cause cannot be infinite regression. This is mechanical fact, subject to and defined by the law of causation, each step along the way, falsifiable, all the way back. Not to mention that "it is repugnant to reason."

4. Intent: Only on purpose, does anything actually come to be. We like to play with terminology, saying that virtual particles 'pop in and out of existence', but we know no such thing. We don't even know what they are, nor what they are comprised of, nor what influences them. Observation of maggots magically appearing in dead flesh doesn't mean that they simply come to be. Do you believe in magic? They only appear to pop in and out of existence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, where do you draw the line and I stop at believing in 'magic'?

I don't understand the question. Where do I draw what line, and for whom?

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is nothing more the textbook definition of projection. Restating what you personally believe, is in no way what others may actually believe. To help you better understand myself (and likely CW), I would ask you to contemplate how you feel, say, about goddess Mama Qucha. Know that we feel about your god as you likely do about Mama Qucha.

I expect you are aware that First Cause is both Omnipotent and does not measure to form. Mama Qucha fails both tests. However, I do agree I do project. This however, I still believe about you, because I so far have not assumed any of us, including me, is altogether honest, nor do I see reason to take your word for it that anyone is unaware of God, though they deny him or his relevance.

To assume another's position, and be wrong, is to miss the point of a conversation. After all, shouldn't the goal of honest interlocution be one of understanding?

A common meaning for God is necessary for honest interlocution on the subject.

At the heart of this particular discussion, is the quality of evidence, and when one should be sufficiently persuaded.

Not really. You, (or someone), were asking about faith. I said faith (salvific faith) is evidence, for some of us. All I did was to demonstrate that it is valid evidence, though not for those who have never had access to it. You want something empirical, I suppose. Falsifiable.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Still following your responses, but you did not respond to post #176, at least not yet? Can we now squash the 'first cause' argument, or would you like to discuss further as it is one of the fundamental reasons you believe?

Sounds like the actual reason you believe is because you have "come to know Him"?

Could you give me the best example of how you have "come to know Him"?

My confidence comes from both. But I am convinced through the argument from First Cause, in itself, because it makes sense. Experience tells me, (and no doubt it will be called projection), that the very fact of, (perhaps the Majesty of), First Cause not only implies many things but on the part of creatures compels submission or rebellion, usually in the form of some degree of dismissal.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Wamp: Ok, then why does God blame me for my unbelief?

Mark: Because you have rejected the obvious, and gone your own way. The understanding of the meaning of Creator, is not just intellectual consent, but submission. You have decided not to submit, and use "intellectually unconvinced" for cover. No, you can't hide from God.

Wamp: The problem you are convince that god exist by evidence that you cannot share. Also, God is not willing to show me He exists. So I have no choice but to remain in my unbelief until God or you provide good evidence.

Mark: I don't believe you have no choice. You demand God show you evidence you are willing to accept. Not likely to happen. Meanwhile, he has shown you enough evidence (nature, existence, universe) that reason should make you at least intellectually acquiesce, but you want into the club without even admitting there is a club?

Mark: I am convinced God exists by evidence that is there for all of us, but even more, I am convinced daily of the reality of God by evidence that he uses to give me more confidence in his existence, that is NOT common to all people. THAT evidence is derived by knowing him, not by reasoning about him.

Wamp, re the floor: And I explained why. You have not explained why for God.

Mark: I'm not sure what you are saying --why WHAT, for God? You mean, why I should believe day by day that God exists, and is relevant? Same reason you believe the floor is there. I have all the evidence I need, and now I have habit, to boot (pun not intended).

So you believe that I actually believe in God but am choosing to deny it somehow?

 

[cvanwey]

My confidence comes from both. But I am convinced through the argument from First Cause, in itself, because it makes sense. Experience tells me, (and no doubt it will be called projection), that the very fact of, (perhaps the Majesty of), First Cause not only implies many things but on the part of creatures compels submission or rebellion, usually in the form of some degree of dismissal.

Then would you mind taking a closer look at post #176 - (in italics below)?

As a preamble, I will make a statement.... If the universe always was, just maybe in a differing form prior to the current state, to speak of 'creation' would then be illogical. If the universe instead did have a true beginning, you are still no closer to proving YHWH as the actual answer. Agree or disagree?

Now to my copy/paste from the other post:

1. Is it even conceivable that the 'universe' is eternal?
2. (For sake of argument) - If you were to somehow find out that the 'universe' is eternal, would your own personal justification for God be weakened at all? Or, would you merely move onto another argument? From your [edit] response, it sounds like you may just concede that the universe is eternal and move on to other point(s)?
3. Assuming the term 'universe' encompassed all time/space/matter/energy/quarks/etc., let's also assume that God is outside these parameters. --- Maybe we call it a "transcendent realm", or other, who knows... Where exactly did/does God dwell, before He decided to create it?

If you instead wish to fast-forward this discussion, my point is that it seems to 'make more sense' to 'conclude'; maybe in haste (mind you); that existence is eternal and not finite? And if existence has no beginning, then it seems illogical to invoke 'creationism'? At best, you can instead argue for a 'change agent'. Maybe the 'Big Bang' represents a placeholder term, which simply means the universe went from one state, to the next; but maybe the 'universe' did not sprout from 'nothing'.?.?.?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thank you for your follow up here... Since this seems to be your 'strongest' reason to believe, do you mind if we explore a bit? If the answer is {no}, then no need to respond I guess

1. Is it even conceivable that the 'universe' is eternal?
2. (For sake of argument) - If you were to somehow find out that the 'universe' is eternal, would your own personal justification for God be weakened at all? Or, would you merely move onto another argument? From your [edit] response, it sounds like you may just concede that the universe is eternal and move on to other point(s)?
3. Assuming the term 'universe' encompassed all time/space/matter/energy/quarks/etc., let's also assume that God is outside these parameters. --- Maybe we call it a "transcendent realm", or other, who knows... Where exactly did/does God dwell, before He decided to create it?

If you instead wish to fast-forward this discussion, my point is that it seems to 'make more sense' to 'conclude'; maybe in haste (mind you); that existence is eternal and not finite? And if existence has no beginning, then it seems illogical to invoke 'creationism'? At best, you can instead argue for a 'change agent'. Maybe the 'Big Bang' represents a placeholder term, which simply means the universe went from one state, to the next; but maybe the 'universe' did not sprout from 'nothing'.?.?.?

[Edit] - If the first cause argument is not the reason you are convinced of a God, then why waste time speaking about it in this thread? What actually convinced you?

Which one are you supposing is my strongest? Anyhow:

1. Q: Is it even conceivable that the 'universe' is eternal?

A: That would depend on your definition of 'universe', I suppose. It is all necessarily in God's hand, dependent on him to sustain its very existence, or he is not God. 'Eternal' also does not necessarily imply infinite in the past.

2. Q: (For sake of argument) - If you were to somehow find out that the 'universe' is eternal, would your own personal justification for God be weakened at all? Or, would you merely move onto another argument? From your [edit] response, it sounds like you may just concede that the universe is eternal and move on to other point(s)?

A: Here you appear to invoke a meaning for 'Eternal' that puts the existence of the universe on par with God's own existence. I guess this would answer your question: it is impossible for the universe to have had no beginning, and God to only be a part within it. That is a contradiction concerning First Cause. Nor is the universe first cause, lacking will, omnipotence, and subject to causes from among its supposed effects.

3. Q: Assuming the term 'universe' encompassed all time/space/matter/energy/quarks/etc., let's also assume that God is outside these parameters. --- Maybe we call it a "transcendent realm", or other, who knows... Where exactly did/does God dwell, before He decided to create it?

A: This is a bigger subject than I expect you realized, but I will try to address it as succinctly as possible. Your question, with its 'where' seems to me to presuppose time, among other things, before he created the universe. But even our scientists admit time is relative, so to me, there is no need to think in terms of a before, unless it is a logical before, (i.e. causation), and even that, to my mind, is an outworking(?) of God's nature, and not a principle he is subject to. I'm not happy with the use of 'pure being' or 'simple existence' that some Christian thinkers like to use to answer your question, but I don't know how better to get across the idea that I think works --this is beyond our ken, lol-- but let me try:

All things proceed from God, directly or indirectly, (except evil/sin, which is a privation of good. To put it in mathematical terms, you cannot say sin has absolute value.) I have told believers and non-believers alike, that it may be more accurate to say, that from God's POV his mere speaking it into existence was the beginning of it all. I don't think there is value in supposing anthropomorphic thought processes and decision-making on his part, but the anthropomorphic notions that would enter our head by denying them also would confuse us. You see, even the meaning of what we call his attributes, are necessarily humanly derived as far as we can tell. They mean more to God than to us.

So God does not operate how we want him to. The funny thing to me is that in saying even that, would imply to some that I then deny that he behaves according to his nature, which I don't deny at all. I say he behaves as is his nature to do, not that he is bound by his nature, as he has no wish to do otherwise. His nature only describes what he does, it does not limit him, as though he would otherwise do differently. (There IS no 'otherwise') His nature, his attributes, his being, are all one and the same.

But I ramble. Sorry.

I discuss First Cause, because it is part of who I am talking about, and part of an answer to the OP, and part of a necessary background to the nature of the faith and evidence I am discussing.

 

[HitchSlap]

I expect you are aware that First Cause is both Omnipotent and does not measure to form. Mama Qucha fails both tests. However, I do agree I do project. This however, I still believe about you, because I so far have not assumed any of us, including me, is altogether honest, nor do I see reason to take your word for it that anyone is unaware of God, though they deny him or his relevance.


A common meaning for God is necessary for honest interlocution on the subject.



Not really. You, (or someone), were asking about faith. I said faith (salvific faith) is evidence, for some of us. All I did was to demonstrate that it is valid evidence, though not for those who have never had access to it. You want something empirical, I suppose. Falsifiable.

If you're unwilling to assume honesty on the part of interlocutors is bad faith, and I see no reason to spend further time replying to you.

 

[cvanwey]

Which one are you supposing is my strongest? Anyhow:

1. Q: Is it even conceivable that the 'universe' is eternal?

A: That would depend on your definition of 'universe', I suppose. It is all necessarily in God's hand, dependent on him to sustain its very existence, or he is not God. 'Eternal' also does not necessarily imply infinite in the past.

2. Q: (For sake of argument) - If you were to somehow find out that the 'universe' is eternal, would your own personal justification for God be weakened at all? Or, would you merely move onto another argument? From your [edit] response, it sounds like you may just concede that the universe is eternal and move on to other point(s)?

A: Here you appear to invoke a meaning for 'Eternal' that puts the existence of the universe on par with God's own existence. I guess this would answer your question: it is impossible for the universe to have had no beginning, and God to only be a part within it. That is a contradiction concerning First Cause. Nor is the universe first cause, lacking will, omnipotence, and subject to causes from among its supposed effects.

3. Q: Assuming the term 'universe' encompassed all time/space/matter/energy/quarks/etc., let's also assume that God is outside these parameters. --- Maybe we call it a "transcendent realm", or other, who knows... Where exactly did/does God dwell, before He decided to create it?

A: This is a bigger subject than I expect you realized, but I will try to address it as succinctly as possible. Your question, with its 'where' seems to me to presuppose time, among other things, before he created the universe. But even our scientists admit time is relative, so to me, there is no need to think in terms of a before, unless it is a logical before, (i.e. causation), and even that, to my mind, is an outworking(?) of God's nature, and not a principle he is subject to. I'm not happy with the use of 'pure being' or 'simple existence' that some Christian thinkers like to use to answer your question, but I don't know how better to get across the idea that I think works --this is beyond our ken, lol-- but let me try:

All things proceed from God, directly or indirectly, (except evil/sin, which is a privation of good. To put it in mathematical terms, you cannot say sin has absolute value.) I have told believers and non-believers alike, that it may be more accurate to say, that from God's POV his mere speaking it into existence was the beginning of it all. I don't think there is value in supposing anthropomorphic thought processes and decision-making on his part, but the anthropomorphic notions that would enter our head by denying them also would confuse us. You see, even the meaning of what we call his attributes, are necessarily humanly derived as far as we can tell. They mean more to God than to us.

So God does not operate how we want him to. The funny thing to me is that in saying even that, would imply to some that I then deny that he behaves according to his nature, which I don't deny at all. I say he behaves as is his nature to do, not that he is bound by his nature, as he has no wish to do otherwise. His nature only describes what he does, it does not limit him, as though he would otherwise do differently. (There IS no 'otherwise') His nature, his attributes, his being, are all one and the same.

But I ramble. Sorry.

I discuss First Cause, because it is part of who I am talking about, and part of an answer to the OP, and part of a necessary background to the nature of the faith and evidence I am discussing.

I'll tackle this one when I can devote more close attention. Stay tuned. It may be a couple of days or more

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you instead wish to fast-forward this discussion, my point is that it seems to 'make more sense' to 'conclude'; maybe in haste (mind you); that existence is eternal and not finite? And if existence has no beginning, then it seems illogical to invoke 'creationism'? At best, you can instead argue for a 'change agent'. Maybe the 'Big Bang' represents a placeholder term, which simply means the universe went from one state, to the next; but maybe the 'universe' did not sprout from 'nothing'.?.?.?

Existence, (unless that is a name by which you wish to call First Cause), if infinite, is only so in that it is of God's nature; since he is infinite, his existence is too. As applies to creatures, infinity is only so as God has use for it to be so, and they are not so of themselves. Also, as they are not uncaused first causes, they had a beginning. They did not exist infinitely in the past.

God is not merely a change agent. He is the only Creator. But yes, he is the only source of "new". If the universe did come about in its present form as a result of the 'Big Bang', yes, that was not the beginning of all things. Whether God directly or indirectly caused the Big Bang, including creating the 'seeds of all we have now', the Big Bang was particular, not homogenous. Further, the 'infinitesimal speck' that expanded had a beginning. The Big Bang was no first cause. To say the same thing another way, if the Universe did not spring from nothing, it was caused, and does not include the cause. If the Universe, by definition included the 'infinitesimal speck' and its causes, and all else --what has been called the 'omni'-- the universe, the Omni, still cannot hold God. If the universe 'forever' goes from one state to the next, it does so by God's creation and design. Its existence depends on him, and not him on it, or he is not God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you believe that I actually believe in God but am choosing to deny it somehow?

No. Even the devil believes (and trembles). You know he is real, but are fooling yourself. Believing is a conscious thing, or at least an assumption in one's thinking. You haven't gotten that far. You see the evidence, but ignore it as well as you can. You claim mere ignorance, but you reject the obvious. It shows in the intellectually vacuous notion that God must prove himself to you according to your satisfaction. God needn't do anything according to your demands. You are clay in his hands.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No. Even the devil believes (and trembles). You know he is real, but are fooling yourself. Believing is a conscious thing, or at least an assumption in one's thinking. You haven't gotten that far. You see the evidence, but ignore it as well as you can. You claim mere ignorance, but you reject the obvious. It shows in the intellectually vacuous notion that God must prove himself to you according to your satisfaction. God needn't do anything according to your demands. You are clay in his hands.

This is unfortunate. On one hand I understand why you have to say this, 5 years ago I would have said the same thing. But it is supremely arrogant to claim to know what another person is thinking and believes. I have never told a Christian that they really don't believe but say they do because they don't want to deal with the reality of death etc. I believe you when you say you believe God exists. You have set yourself up to maintain your belief no matter what evidence I present, you can just tell me what I "really" think and go on your happy way and not have to think about anything. So any conversation is useless with you until you can have an honest conversation without telling me what I believe. So have a nice day.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is unfortunate. On one hand I understand why you have to say this, 5 years ago I would have said the same thing. But it is supremely arrogant to claim to know what another person is thinking and believes. I have never told a Christian that they really don't believe but say they do because they don't want to deal with the reality of death etc. I believe you when you say you believe God exists. You have set yourself up to maintain your belief no matter what evidence I present, you can just tell me what I "really" think and go on your happy way and not have to think about anything. So any conversation is useless with you until you can have an honest conversation without telling me what I believe. So have a nice day.

I am not saying that you think it or believe it. I'm saying you know it. Your mind says otherwise --that I don't doubt at all-- but your heart knows better. Your will says, 'nope'.

Your 'evidence' is evidence that you are not the atheist that at least others claim to be --simply failing to believe. If you have evidence that there is no God, then you reject God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

But it is supremely arrogant to claim to know what another person is thinking and believes.

Yeah, this is my biggest pet-peeve. "You don't know what you think. Let me tell you..." Bah.
A. "How dare you?" "
B. "Well, scripture says..."
A. "Just more evidence it's wrong."