But I still think we can discuss the nature of God without the discussion becoming an argument over proving or disproving God’s existence.
I truely hope this thread does not end up like the 13 pages of rant “why don’t you believe in God” I unintentionally started.
I’ll just restate what I wrote. The existence of God can not be proven by reason because God remains an unknown entity. Trying to prove God by means of reason using the limited number of characteristics we can conceive is futile because in order for a reductio to work. We must know EVERY aspect of God, which we do not.
The existence of God CAN NOT be proven.
Did you read the original post?
I’m trying to point out that I cannot argue for the existence of God philosophically.
Its find an good to speak of religion in incomprehensible terms, but it isn’t what interests me. I want to find a way to be precise and detailed, but I think these kinds of exchanges should have more to do with tangible human experience and less to do with grammar.
I am also more skeptical about marginalizing the importance of clarifying our distinct notions of God.
Your idea of being on God’s side lends support to my point that an individual has to prepare himself personally to approach a particular god.
No, I disagree. Have we been reading the same posts? There are people taking the tone that God’s existence is somehow bound by the formulation of their arguments because they are so cleverly worded.
Right, logical validity is not sign of the truth. We can make up valid religious arguments for whatever we want. That does not make them true or, consequently, sound.
Yes, precisely, if people are so genuinely dedicated to the discovery of the divine it should require an intense commitment. If the divine is what it purports to be, it must be a challenge to approach it.
Your are right. People are convinced when they see something tangible like faith in action. Words alone are far weaker. If Christians genuinely want others to believe in God, they are told to “go and do thou likewise” and follow in the footsteps of their master.
Bible bashing is so useless a conversion tool.
The theme of truth as a process, rather than a location is appealing. It is not all-convincing to me. I should like to know more about being and becoming.
Well, if God did in fact talk to someone face to face I would like to know about it and I would be willing to concede that person some kind of higher authority to speak on the subject of God. It only makes sense to me.
However, if no one legitimately like that is around, then we are on equal footing. But if there were someone like Peter alive today, I’d be interested in his opinion.
I think this is a very thoughtful response. It provides much to think about and we may have some important differences. Thank you for posting.
But don’t you realize that this kind of tone towards others is part of the
problem?
“How difficult it is to offer something of another’s judgment without affecting his judgment by the way we do it.” Pascal (Pensees 33:454).
We shouldn’t even be talking about “destroying” anybody.
What do you think the purpose of philosophy is?
And do you really believe in God? If yes, is it the God of the Bible?
The point of this thread if you read the original post is that “yes” it is pointless to argue over the existence of God. Now, if you want to dispute why, then please refer to that post and demonstrate the fallacy of the points of argument there.
I am interested to see how you respond.
Thank you.
Arguments like this are pointless because God is known by Revelation in the person of His Son Jesus Christ, Emmanuel, God with us. That’s all I have to say on this topic, because to engage someone in debate at this point would, by my definition, would be pointless. God’s interested in brokenness and humility in light of our human position. If we humble ourselves, He will lift us up. But, Christian or not, if we build arguments as monuments to our own glory, what does that say about us? That we’re petty and small, and that we’ve taken our own glory and stature into our own hands. God lets us. We’ve exercised our freedom. This is aptly named the religion thread, because it represents all the things I hate about religion - a man-made endeavor. OK, I’m done.
Did you even bother to read the original post that was the impetus of this thread?
I read them all. And, since I wasn’t responding to you in particular, but the whole tone of the debate that occurs in here in general. Rather than working over others, I’ll work on myself.
cyber i would hope that my tone incites people to give a real argument for why they dont believe in god. so far absolutely zero have been put forward. the only one that tries to make sense and isnt based on the stupidity of an old book is disputing the validity of the golden rule, which has yet to make me start to think that its possible that im wrong about it.
the purpose of philosphy, if you disagree with me, is to show me the evidence you have so that i may explain what is wrong with it. if im unable to do that, fine. before we get to that point however, i think it is imperative that atheists present their non-bible related evidence.
yes i believe in god, no not the one written down by anybody besides me, the inventor of “panthe-de-omnisoulism”
70 times 7, im a man and i came up with a completely valid theory of god that doesnt refer to “revelation” whatever the hell that is. if you believe what you just said (i couldnt tell if youre being sarcastic), dont you understand that some people arent going to understand how to learn things “by Revelation” seeing as how that doesnt actually mean anything, and the people who came up with that idea got really rich because of it?
whats that mean
in response to the original topic… if people are really trying to prove the existence or non-existence of God, i think they are wasting their time. however, simply arguing the idea out among people can be very useful. Remember, the point of discussion is not simply to come to a consensus (damn democracy has plagued our minds). There is value simply in discussion, both in understanding a different point of view and in the potential to strengthen your own view through defense and criticism.
Now, I don’t find the conversations that follow the lines of “this is so because of x” when x basically boils down to “because i said so”. Of course the “discussion” is worthless if it breaks down into what is basically name calling.
However, I have found some of these discussions to be useful as a means of honing my own ideas on the subject, of making my beliefs stronger. Its hard to really truly believe something (at least for me) until you seen all the other arguments out there and faced the criticism to your own ideas which they offer.
Further, there is always the chance that someone’s mind will be changed, perhaps only slightly. Within the context of this particular forum, it seems that most people have made up their minds on the issue of God. But perhaps it is simply those who are really strong in their beliefs that post. Perhaps there are bystanders who see the arguments and see in them some sort of truth which helps them come to a belief. Even among the people who do seem vehement in their beliefs, you will notice that many of them went through various changes in belief through their lives.
If you are trying to come to proof or consensus you will most likely be dissapointed, but growth, development and understanding are still quite possible within the context of this question
Well, that’s good, but I thought you would have acknowledged the value of my original argument if you saw any, because I believe we agree.
I actually do not see how this discussion has degenerated into an argument over the existence of God.
Everything has tended to be a discussion about the usefulness of arguing over God’s existence. So, your comment about the “tone of the debate that occurs in here” is not warranted unless you are actually going to have the philosophic sense to take examples from the thread and respond to those showing why they are in error.
Because this is an argument I started and no one has yet to refute my points satisfactorily, you are welcome to respond.
The problem is that you came in blazing to someone who is on your side and you did not even acknowledge that. Obviously, these debates have had quite an emotional impact on you possibly impairing your ability to read more carefully and respond philosophically.
As far as “working over others” as opposed to “work on myself” I really don’t see that as the goal-state for someone who purports to be a follower of Jesus. I thought Christians were supposed to be “long suffering” and “patient.” I thought they want to help others. I don’t see how being condescending in a few trite sentences lives up to the standard you purport to affirm. Jesus strikes me as a man who was thoughtful and provocative.
Hi Cybersage,
The problem that you are having is that Religion has always been a question of expression of experiences and has very often been transported by stories and abstractions because you can’t get ‘precise and detailed’! This whole discussion is continually going off track and we pretend we are talking about some physical entity that is or was ‘here’ or ‘there’, or we argue against such ideas.
The Bible is continually fighting such an idea, maintaining that God is unreachable or that he is unfathomable. The implications of divine revelation have often been big, but the initial spark was probably quite ‘normal’ and not so dramatic as it was later portrayed. The importance of such revelation had to be transported in a manner that every child could understand – which is the reason why the ‘truth’ is wrapped up in Myth and Legend sometimes.
We need to know what our own notions are, since our culture is very often influence by it, but also be open towards other peoples ‘notions’ for the same reason. The idea that a universal God should give one people a revelation and leave another ignorant is primitive. If Peacemakers are the Sons of God, then surely we know what consequences should follow.
Shalom
Bob
If you follow the Christian religious philosophy debate that was promoted in the last century, for example, by Paul Tillich, you find that the whole problem of discussing God is that people try to make him the object of discussion, whereas God is the name of the Absolute and can in fact only be the basis of discussion. Mystical teachers have known this for centuries and often came into disrepute with the officials of the Church who were arguing along exactly the same lines, disregarding even what the Fathers of the Church like Augustine had recognised.
The Church made it’s mistakes in power, not required to explain itself, it assumed many things and scholars who pointed out that a particular line of thought was not in keeping with the philosophical status quo were often silenced. Church leaders often wanted an argument for the existence of God, but the philosophical debate within the Church was a rational description of the relation of our mind to ‘Being’ (not a Being) as such, which is what ‘first appears in the intellect’ and is ‘pure actuality and therefore divine’.
Meister Eckhardt says: “There is between God and the soul neither strangeness nor remoteness, therefore the soul is not only equal with God but it is … the same that He is.†All Mystics were familiar with this kind of paradox, which is what often brought them into difficulties. The many descriptions of absolutes in the life of Mankind are actually pointing to the one Absolute, which is what we call God.
Everybody is working towards this Absolute, whether it is existence, love, truth or goodness they are seeking, but we tend to look for one and not the other, excluding certain aspects of the Absolute for others. Augustine said that God was bonum ipsum (the Good Itself). And he also said that God was verum ipsum (Truth Itself), which indicates that we are not talking about something that can be the object of discussion, around which we all gather and make our comments. There is only a mystical approach possible - although God is more than Mysticism.
Shalom
Bob
Responding to the original post, I agree that any attempt to prove or disprove “God” philosophically is pointless. I would also agree that any awareness of anything we would name creator or creation is both personal and non-transferrable.
I’d like a bit more explanation of a few of your statements if you would indulge me. “Getting God to respond to you requires more exertion…” “while I can speak to you about God,” “…you must acquaint yourself personally with him.”
JT
Hi JT,
nice to have you back!
Well, I don’t really expect any explanations - do you? You may be asking a rhetorical question, but people who make this kind of statement rarely come up with the goods in the end.
Shalom
Bob
Well, assuming that we are referring to a similar notion of God, which is probably a false assumption, then we agree that this thing “God” is purported to the be Almighty power which created and governs, not just the earth, but the universe. In other words, it is this rather amazing thing. We as humans have to make quite a confident assertion that we actually can contact this thing. I think you have to ask yourself what is it that is so important about you personally that this thing “God” would lower itself to communicate with you on a personal level?
I think this idea of approaching the divine for confirmation of it’s existence is quite an optimistic idea. Wouldn’t you agree that this is quite an interesting thing? One says essentially, “I know that I am nothing, dust of the earth, and a speck in the universe, HOWEVER, I am still convicted in my soul that God, himself, will communicate with me personally.” This is precisely the kind of confidence that fascinates me. I’m not saying it is wrong, but it leads into my point, that (1) if God is what we imagine and (2) we can communicate with God and God will answer, then to me it only stands to reason that this God will not be approached without the highest degree of regard for what it is. In other words, how does one approach such a Being? Is it through a dialectic in an internet forum? Is it through ranting about how that Being fails to exist? Is it through a mere uttering of a few choice compliments? I am arguing that such an approach in order to adequately conduct one to the desired goal of divine communication ought to mirror the cosmic gravity of the event. It will not be a haphazard event, neither will the approach be whimsical or flagrant. In other words, I don’t call God down with haughty words, I persuade him to respond with genuine showings of devotion and obedience according to his dictates. Depending on the particular God I want to approach, typically, there will be a number of things I should do to gain it’s acknowledgment such as commandments and practices. These practices require me to exert myself, but they don’t obligate God to respond. It’s response is then an act of mercy or something only fitting for the Master of the universe as nothing I could have done could have ever obligated it to respond as I am practically nothing in the universe.
This also helps to explain why my conviction is non-transferable. You have to exert yourself. I think of the monks or Essenes and how they worked night and day for God, but they are reported to have had a number of divine manifestations.
Assuming these kind of reports have substance, what do these divines do after they have had an experience? Often, they keep it to themselves, because they know it is personal. But the more enlightened ones don’t go around using philosophical dialogs to convince the world. What do they do? They bear witness of the divine experience they have had by describing the event. They report what has happened to them.
What are the prophets? They aren’t men and women who sit and argue about whether God exists. Practically, everything they do and say assumes that God exists. In other words, they simply report that God exists and they describe it and it’s purposes with humankind. But then it is left to the listener to approach the divine and ascertain whether these reports are true and the prophets provide a list of things that one must do in order to successfully enter into the divine presence. For example, Moses gave the Law to Israel. Jesus fulfilled that law. But the point of the law was to prescribe, not just how one conducts oneself, but how one proceeds in drawing nearer to God thereby learning more about God.
In other words, these prophets DON’T do philosophy. They are much more akin to experienced news reporters, than philosophers. They tell you what has happened to them and how the same thing may happen to you. Moses wanted all of Israel to enter into God’s presence, but the people rejected this idea. Its quite fascinating and yet understandable that they would turn down his invitation to meet God. (See Exodus 19-20 KJV for the story.)
Knowing God entails a bit of fear and awe which I see entirely lacking in the forum debates regard his existence. Ergo, I conclude that no one participating in these debates really knows the Being or has even remotely tried to exert him/her self to know the Being.
Blaise Pascal is made much fun of in these threads for his famous Wager, but I can also tell that most people haven’t read or studied Pascal’s work. He personally puts the Wager in a context and it is not his ultimate position on why one should obey God.
He would agree with what I have said here. For his version of this argument see Pensees Section 46 “A Letter to Further the Search For God.” This text has influenced me strongly. If you read it, get back to me and we’ll discuss it. It is quite awesome philosophically.
Thank you for posting.
Read above. I’m sorry I haven’t responded to all of your comments, but I have to this one.
I agree that there is the notion that the divine is deep and profound and unsearchable, but on the other hand prophets have experienced God and lived to describe the events in some detail.
If you agree that Jesus was God, for example, then we have all sorts of details about him and his doings that are quite fathomable.
So, your point is understood, but it cannot be all inclusive.
Clearly, there is a real tension between experiencing the divine and understanding it.
I may simply be more optimistic than you about one’s possibilities for understanding.
Thank you for pointing this out. It is very important.
Sorry for the long time before I replied, I lost your response in the flood of other things here on the boards. I think the only use you can take out of these sorts of discussions have to be selfish. Going into it with the idea that you're going to convince somebody else of something is probably too optimistic, in a subject as emotional as religion. However, what you can do, is float certain arguments and ideas by people, to see what the dissenting opinion is likely to be, and use that information to self-evaluate.
As far as some useful threads about problems with the traditional concepts of God, go ahead and start a few, and we'll see if we can keep the signal to noise ratio pretty good- It wouldn't be proper for me to start a therad like that, since I'm a pretty 'traditional' guy when it comes to my concepts.