Anyone got proof of God

[nine dog war]

I have heard all the retohric, the Bible versus etc etc etc

What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either.

Please note the words "Tangible" and "Logical". If wish to use quotes from the religious texts then please prove the vadility of the source. e.g. If you quote from the Bible book of Luke please provide proof Luke existed and was not completly stark raving mad.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt for it is easily filled with faith.

[thebluetriangle]

Bernee51,

And around what would you base this 'love based thinking'?

On love.

So we can base 'love based thinking' on love. Wow - why didn't I think of that?

Ask a stupid question...

Can you be more specific?

We'd have to define 'love'. M. Scott Peck defined love as (and I may be paraphrasing slightly) "the will to extend yourself for the purpose of assisting your own or another person's growth". That's not a bad definition, I would say. It's not necessarily about being 'nice' either. I work in a homeless shelter, and sometimes the most loving thing we can do for a homeless person who won't obey our very basic rules (don't smoke, drink, take drugs or abuse other people) is to ask them to leave.

Every thought, word and action will either take you towards God or away from Him. Initially, your only real moment-to-moment guide as to where you are heading - and an imperfect one at that - is your conscience. But the greater your intention to move towards God, the more you will be assisted.

Every thought we have is based on either love or fear: it is the ultimate polarity. It is a question of will. We can will to be more loving, or we can let ourselves be ruled by fear. That is simple, but not always easy, because we are conditioned to think fearfully from an early age.

Like fearful of being labeled a sinner? Fearful of eternal damnation? Fearful of a vengeful god?

Religious people are sometimes the most fearful of all. I don't subscribe to that kind of thinking about God. By the way, being labelled a sinner by the world doesn't necessarily make you a sinner in God's eyes.

God is a concept (by which we measure or pain)

No, 'God' is our word for a transcendent reality that is beyond intellectual definition.

thebluetriangle

[bernee51]

Robert,

Thanks for the welcome, and the courtesy of a reply.

You are most welcome

You replied...

I am committed wherever possible to reason over wishful thinking (aka faith) and I an of a view that logical fallacy is a pattern of poor reasoning which appears to be (and in this sense mimics) a pattern of good reasoning. The offense then is not against anything other than reason.

Your statement about what good reasoning is seems to violate principles of good reasoning. You seem to be saying that you want to embrace reason over faith because it is good reasoning to do so. If your position is that you are an atheist because you want to be reasoned, and then go on to define reason as atheism, I'd call that a poor argument.

And I would agree with you - if that is what I was claiming it is question begging. I do not define atheism as reason - I define atheism as the non belief in god(s). How that non belief is arrived at is incidental. I am an atheist because I see no need for or evidence of god.

(I mean no insult, only to point out that more is required of one making a claim to reason than merely to affirm that he has no faith, as should now be clear from the circularity of your statements.)

No offense taken. I hope I have cleared up your mistaken belief that I was presenting a circular argument.

OK I've contemplated it. Now what?

Well, I hope you can recognize the implications on your beliefs about logic and reason if my apodosis follows from my protasis. I made an IF / THEN statement. Can you show me how the apodosis (the "then" clause) would not follow from the protasis (the "if" clause)?

You see, I am, and will be, employing what is called a modus tollens syllogism:

If P then Q,
not Q,
therefore not P.

You mean like:

1. If God exists, then the primacy of consciousness is true.
2. It is not the case that the primacy of consciousness is true.
3. Hence, it is not the case that God exists. (Modus tollens, from 1, 2)

I am suggesting to you that if you are right that there is no God like the one described in the Bible, and that all that there is is matter, then there can be no invisible, immaterial law of omnipresent "reason" that referees individual human thoughts--and all thought, including those of Aristotle along with yours and mine, would then be reduced to the discrete chemical events in the skulls of the individual organism experiencing them, and they would then have no relation or relevance to the chemical events in the heads of any other 'thinker.' In short, you said that only "reason" is offended, to which I must reply with the question, "What, in your view, is 'reason' exactly that we should care about offending it?"

Your exact aphorism was:

If logic is not how God thinks, it was merely how Aristotle thought.

It does not assume the god of the bible does not exist, merely that the god of the bible does not think logically. This could very well be a true statement.

Nonetheless...

Interestingly these 'chemical events' power a nervous system which underpins, in the case of we humans, a self aware consciousness. This consciousness is evolving. One of the mechanism which influences this evolution is enlightened self interest. Reason is a sub set of enlightened self interest.

[thebluetriangle]

Goat,

How presbyterian. Are you aware that the Bible is chock-full of dreams, visions, signs, angels, miracles and one full-blown Resurrection?

thebluetriangle

And you know what all of those have in common? They are after the fact , retrofitted, shoe horned, or just plain fictional.

What this boils down to, like many of the discussions on this thread, is whether one believes in the existence of supernatural occurrences. If they could be shown to be real, then there is at least a chance that some of the Bible's miraculous stories are true. From my own experience I know this to be the case. But as a former agnostic/atheist, I appreciate how difficult it must be for someone who has never gone through a supernatural experience or seen a miracle to accept the possibility that they are real.

The words 'miracle' and 'supernatural' are really labels for those experiences that defy explanation by our current understanding of reality. They also tend to be unrepeatable, which makes them unsuitable for scientific investigation, and elusive, which makes it easy for those of 'scientific' or 'rational' bent tend to dismiss reports of their occurrence. But that does not make them unreal. Keep an open mind.

The New Bible Code is a notable exception to the rule that the miraculous is elusive. It is a frozen miracle, which can be studied at leisure by all who care to do so. That is what makes it so exciting.

thebluetriangle

[Goat]

hi bernee!

Hi Martin and welcome. What proof of god are you referring to?

the world is proof enough, looking out the window is evidence, taking a breath. do you seriously and honestly think we came to be by mere chance? that earth came to be on the perfect spot, with the perfect weather with the exact demands for us to live?

This is known as the logical fallacy as 'personal incredibility'. It is saying "i can't believe it otherwise, so I will make an unsupported assertion based on my personal prejudice'.

[bernee51]

hi bernee!

Hi Martin and welcome. What proof of god are you referring to?

the world is proof enough, looking out the window is evidence, taking a breath. do you seriously and honestly think we came to be by mere chance? that earth came to be on the perfect spot, with the perfect weather with the exact demands for us to live?

Is 'goddidit' the only thing you can think of?

I don't see a creation.

we can only guide the blind, not make them see.

What you mistake for blindness is actually seeing things differently. There is no reason to not believe what you call 'creation' has in some form or another always existed.

This is known as a 'straw man'. It is helpful when debating to understand logical fallacies.

i think its a perfect example. explain how it is a 'straw man' please. [/quote]
You are claiming that because a computer was manufactured (not created) then the universe must have been. It is a case of versimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.

Tell me - do you think Odin and/or Zeus exists? if not why not?

because they are madeup by pagans.

Whoever made up your god would be a pagan in their eyes.

they have no proof of it and they are 'man-gods'.

And you have no proof.

Are you aware that the god concept has evolved since mankind first conceived of god(s). have you actually studied the history and growth of religion?

the true god of this world is shown in the holy bible, if you read it he will guide you.

On what basis do you assume I haven't read it?

[bernee51]

Bernee51,

And around what would you base this 'love based thinking'?

On love.

So we can base 'love based thinking' on love. Wow - why didn't I think of that?

Ask a stupid question...

The only stupid question is the one not asked. Which of my questions did you consider stupid?

Can you be more specific?

We'd have to define 'love'. M. Scott Peck defined love as (and I may be paraphrasing slightly) "the will to extend yourself for the purpose of assisting your own or another person's growth". That's not a bad definition, I would say.

I prefer mindful awareness of the happiness and well-being of all.

God is a concept (by which we measure or pain)

No, 'God' is our word for a transcendent reality that is beyond intellectual definition.

What is 'transcendent reality' if not an intellectual definition.

[Biker]

A degree of interpretation is always required when reading texts. Truths are often couched in symbolism, allegory and metaphor and many prophecies are given in these terms. What I am saying is that many biblical prophecies and narratives, such as the tower of Babel story, Jesus causing the fig-tree to wither, the crucifixion of Jesus, the destruction of the two witnesses and the destruction of the beast, can be seen as metaphors for the events of 9/11. Encoded numbers within the NIV appear to support that interpretation - in fact led me to that understanding.

There is symbolism in the destruction of the ram's horns. The ram was a sacrificial animal in biblical times - for instance, substituting for Isaac in Genesis 22 - leading to the idea of the sacrificial lamb, who was Jesus. Remember that 9/11 symbolised the crucifixion, according to my interpretation of the code.

So it seems you seriously consider the deaths of a measly 2500 people to be included in your Bibles prophecies, that is Truly amazing. It also shows you consider americans superior to none-americans, a stance I have no knowledge of how you explain.

What about the hundreds of thousands of lives killed by the U.S alone, why are these 2500 americans (quite a deal of them not even americans for your note) so important, and valuable?

WHO is this beast you speak of? Muslims? The U.S have been in war and responsible for uncountable number of innocent deaths. But perhaps muslims are less worth, not being Christian? Please explain.

God will not stand by and let us destroy ourselves. The USA, the new Rome, was leading the world (much of which was gladly following) towards collective suicide. If we are to survive the current world crisis, we must be led by our higher natures, instead of letting our lower natures drive us. This is the meaning of the 'crucifixion' of the twin towers, representing avarice, and the Pentagon, representing power-by-force. These were the very symbols of man's rebellion, outer manifestations of what is in reality within our hearts. They are also what separates us from our Creator, and their destruction by the Christ was a clear message to us all: to survive as a species we must remove them from our hearts and our world.

WOW!!!
The U.S is the NEW ROME baby. Cool.

Lets see, I assume you mean the Roman Empire. Im curious, how is the U.S even mentioned in the same sentence?

The U.S is by any definition a tragic example of a nation. Massive poverty for a western country, Poor education, Violance etcetera. It seems you lack the historical knowledge of United States. Are you aware that it is because of the Second World War the United States can even feed itself today?

Because of WWII, the U.S got an advantage, which all countries not involved in war get. And use it to its advantage which you can see today, the most advanced nations on the planet was in war, Talk about take the milk and run. And they did, and AMAZINGLY enough, manage to keep such poor education in the country, that the average american believe anything they are told from that the U.S was the ones 'winning the second world war', to 'WMD in Iraq'.


The United States is not the world. Explain how you seem to equate the U.S with all these 'prophecies', and manage to Ignore facts and the world... Please, do tell.


I get reminded of one of the Super Man movies, with Reeves. When the evil guys wants to see the WORLD LEADER, and get to see the U.S PRESIDENT.. WOW, talk about DELUSION....

This is a bit off topic but I couldn't remain silent.

The US is by definition a tragic example of a nation.

Hmmm.
Maybe that is why we are contemplating putting up a wall to keep the millions of multinationals from sneaking into this "tragic example", to work, unannounced and undocumented. I know I live on the US-Mexican border, and cross it numerous times a week.
Maybe that is why the whole world is clamoring to come here to take advantage of our universities, hospitals, jobs, cultural events, sporting events, art museums, realestate, banking institutions, technologies, etc etc etc etc etc.
Me thinks you have no idea what your talking about, sport!
What wonderful country are you from?
Oh, and I forgot, just look up the statistics on the various recent (last 75 years)world disasters sometime, and see who (that tragic example) comes to the aid of EVERYBODY, with money, food, clothing, medical, infrastructure, etc etc etc etc.
Because of the Christian principles that this country was founded on, and influences into every aspect of our culture, including the US military. Who is putting that tragic nation back together called Iraq, in spite of their 700A.D. selves.

Biker[/quote

hahah, So that makes it better then all other WESTERN nations... Wow, good logic there.

hahah, So that makes it better then all all other Western nations... Wow, good logic there.

This must be put words in mouth of Biker month?
No, it doesn't make it (USA) anything other than not tragic.
Now, again, WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU FROM?

Biker

[Robert]

I have heard all the retohric, the Bible versus etc etc etc

What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either.

Please note the words "Tangible" and "Logical".

"Tangible" is hardly a serious standard, for we cannot "touch" the proof of anything outside our reach, including Julius Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, or the neutrino, yet we believe in them all. For a "logical argument" I will refer you to my post of Fri Apr 28, 9:28am, my entire reply to Bernee. I assume by "proof" however you mean "empirical evidence."

But I must ask...What makes you believe that 'empirical evidence' is the correct standard for an inquiry of this nature? Before you answer, let me flesh out where I am driving with this question.

The rational mind moves from ends to means, that is, it first
decides what it wants to do before it decides how it is going to do it.
For instance, let's consider the ancient inquiring mind who decides to
determine for himself whether great legendary sea creatures called "whales" really
exist. If he were then to adjourn to his parlour to study a topographical map of a landlocked country in Europe (and only that) we would have to conclude that he had not chosen rational means to accomodate his declared ends.

If a man wants to know whether whales exist, he goes to the sea, he does not
stare at a map on the wall and insist that since he uses the map to plot
his land journeys with great success, he will therefore not budge from
that place to accomodate his declared goal of discovering whether whales
exist.

So, a rational mind will tailor his methodology to suit the peculiar
object of his inquiry. On the question then of whether God exists, the
rational mind would naturally have to ask a few preliminary
questions before beginning.

First, would one's ordinary standards for making inquiries about
material objects suit this particular object? No, any inquiries about an
immaterial God would not be a proper occasion for methodologies used for
material things.

Second, (and this is a fundamental question): if God exists, what would He be, and what would He be in relation to me? Looking back to the whale analogy, certain assumptions need to be made about the object of your inquiry before you begin. An inquiry about whales has to assume a few things, like, it would be
big, and it would dwell in the sea, and would be an animal, and not a
vegetable or a mineral, and it would be a solid, and not a gas or a
liquid. So too an inquiry about God would involve a few basic
assumptions, otherwise, it isn't really an honest inquiry about God.

What assumptions would I need to make about God? Well, if God exists, He would be my ontological superior, and I would be His creature. Would such an object of my inquiry then be One Who would submit to whatever standards I might devise, would He answer to me, would He likely make Himself accountable to my standards, or would I instead have to answer to Him if He exists? Would He set the standard of inquiry to get to Him, or would His creature, if
God exists? A human inquirer would be accountable to such an object of
his inquiry, intellectually, ethically, ontologically, rather than the
reverse, which is a state of affairs that is entirely different than with any other kind of human inquiry.

My point is that any human inquiry about God that begins with an assumption
that God is material (and therefore subject to typical "empirical
standards of proof"), or that begins with an assumption that the human inquirer is autonomous and is himself the point of reference for the universe, would, from the nature of the case, be a fundamentally flawed methodology. That's what makes this a sui generis inquiry: you would have to approach its object on your knees.

Which of the two methodologies, which of the two standards of
inquiry, COULD lead you to an immaterial God if He is there, to a Being Who
would be, if He is there, our ontological superior, and to Whose
standards we would have to answer to rather than the reverse? Which
methodology COULD succeed, and which of the two, ours or yours, would be the more rational given the nature of the object of this inquiry?

Please also consider that a man who looks at a topographical map on his wall to answer the question "are there whales" would hardly be one to judge whether any other party is "stark raving mad."

Respectfully,

Robert

PS. Please consult that post to bernee I mentioned before replying to this one. It may affect the content of your reply.

[Robert]

Bernee,

Interestingly these 'chemical events' power a nervous system which underpins, in the case of we humans, a self aware consciousness. This consciousness is evolving. One of the mechanism which influences this evolution is enlightened self interest. Reason is a sub set of enlightened self interest.

What can you point to as support for your obviously firm belief that the chemical events that gave rise to these thoughts of yours are more "true" or "logical," or have any more significance than the chemical events that gave rise to your last bowel movement? What makes them more real and less a fantasy than the chemical events that produced your last dream?

Your use of a syllogism prompts me to ask the question, yet again, "What, in your view, is 'reason' exactly that we should care about offending it?" What can you suggest to me is a basis for us to believe that the chemical events in Aristotle's skull have any relevance to the chemical events in ours? A dead Greek apprehended the syllogism. What therefore do syllogisms have to do with us--and why--in your worldview?

I have the mind and character of God as a basis for my belief that there is a rational order and a moral order (respectively) to the universe, which Aristotle merely apprehended. What's your basis for your belief in a rational order in this universe, that you mention "reason" and use syllogisms? If thought is merely chemical, thought is only matter. What then would be the material link between Aristotle's grey matter and yours?

There are consequences to rejecting the Christian God (and ONLY in rejecting the Christian God!), and in making one's self, and not the Word of God, the reference point for judging reality, one of which is the loss of a basis to believe in an omnipresent, immaterial, universal standard of thought called "reason" or "logic." Without the "Logos," as He is described in Scripture, there is no ground to believe in omnipresent "logic."

You keep talking as if you live in a universe ruled by my God, and not the universe necessarily implied by atheism, which would be atomistic, chaotic, irrational, and objectively meaningless. The reason you do so is because you do in fact live in the universe the Bible says you live in, and are just sinfully denying what you know in order to retain your sovereignty over against His rightful claims on you.

Every word out of your mouth presupposes that the Christian God lives and reigns, in that every word out of your mouth presupposes the omnipresent mind of the Logos referee-ing our respective propositions on the grounds of their logic or illogic. The same goes for every word out of your mouth that evidences a belief in an objective moral order by which you can condemn particular instances of wrongdoing.

I therefore call upon you to repent of your sins--including denying the God you obviously rely on in your argumentation to be there--and to lay down your arms and embrace the terms of peace He offers you in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Do so and you will not only have forgiveness in Him, and life eternal, but finally have a basis to believe in the objective logic and objective morality whose reality you already give testimony to by your every utterance.

Soli Deo gloria,

Robert

[Robert]

I have heard all the retohric, the Bible versus etc etc etc

What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either.

Please note the words "Tangible" and "Logical". If wish to use quotes from the religious texts then please prove the vadility of the source. e.g. If you quote from the Bible book of Luke please provide proof Luke existed and was not completly stark raving mad.

"Tangible" as a standard isn't serious, for we cannot touch Julius Caesar, or Abraham Lincoln, or the neutrino, yet we accept their existence, and on nothing but authority. For "logical," I refer you to my two posts to bernee. As far as "proof," I assume by that you mean empirical proof. I am, however, convinced that an empirical methodology is completely inapposite to an inquiry about God's existence. Here's why...

The rational mind moves from ends to means. That is, it first decides what it wants to do before it decides how it is going to do it. For instance, let's consider a hypothetical. Let's say an inquiring mind from the ancient world decides to learn for himself whether massive but as yet legendary sea creatures called "whales" really exist. If he were then to adjourn to his parlor to study a topographical map of a landlocked country in Europe, one would have to conclude that he had not chosen a rational methodology, a rational means, to accomplish his stated end. If a man wants to learn whether whales exist, he goes to the sea, he does not stare at a map of a landlocked country on the wall and insist that since he uses that map successfully for all his land lavigation it must also be appropriate for this question. In other words, a rational mind tailors his methodology to suit the particular object of his inquiry.

On the question of whether God exists, the rational mind would never conclude that empirical standards would serve as a proper methodology because the object of this inquiry is, first and foremost, non-material. Looking back to our hypothetical, certain assumptions have to be made about the object of your inquiry before you begin. As in the case of whales, you would assume it is big, and that it is an animal and not a vegetable or a mineral; moreover it would be a solid, and not a gas or a liquid. Without these assumptions, it simply isn't a genuine inquiry about whales.

More importantly, the inquirer would have to ask in his inquiry about God, "What would God be if God exists, and what would God be in relation to me or to any human inquirer?" God would be, if God exists, an ontological superior to the human inquirer. God, in order to be God, would not have to answer to the standards or judgments of a human inquirer. God, not man, would set the terms of inquiry along with everything else. Man would be accountable to God, not the reverse, if God exists, and in every way: ontologically, intellectually, and morally. This is an entirely different state of affairs for a human inquiry than with any other kind of human inquiry.

My point here is that any human inquiry regarding God that begins with the assumption that the human inquirer is "the standard setter," the "judge", or is himself the ultimate reference point of truth, would, from the nature of the case, be a fundamentally flawed methodology. This is what makes this a sui generis inquiry: you could only hope to succeed if you approach its object on your knees.

Soli Deo gloria,

Robert

PS. Please consider that a man who looks at a map on the wall to answer the question of the existence of whales would hardly be one to judge whether any other party is "stark, raving mad."