Proof there is a God

[Jan Ardena]

Jan I am very happy I did not offend you and that the only feeling you experienced was amusement.

Very happy?
Not just happy?
Really?

I hardly rate my simple words as a speech but I thank you for elevating my words to such a high level.

And you are correct yet again I have nothing to say.

You ain't fooling anybody with this show of false modesty, humility, or whatever it is.

Why don't you see this through, answering the questions I raised?
Are you afraid to face your current world view head on?

I feel you need some victories in arguement for reasons I do not need to know.
So I conceed defeat in the hope it gives you confidence in yourself and your inteligence that I suspect you think I ridiculed.

How many times do I need to tell you?
Your points lack substance, and are therefore incapable of piercing any of my points. Also to add, contrary to popular belief, my points aren't born of my own mind. I am arguing from the perspective of scriptures (not just biblical). So it is based on different kinds of theology, as opposed to my own personal faith based ideologies.

My profile is that I am a theist, a person who believes in God. Not someone who claims that God objectively exists. So I am open to the idea that God may actually exist. But we need to know what God is, regardless of belief or lack of.

Now I will stand aside and let you use your keen intelect to argue with others and hopefully they will grant you a much needed victory also.

Awww!
Your so kind.

I wish you all the best, sincerely I do, I must say to be able to argue the way you do in support of the unsupportable (in my view) has gained my respect. The way you avoid the issue is masterful, the way you draw folk in is a pleasure to witness.

Bear with me while I pick out the complimemets, and throw the insults in the dust bin.

What issues are you referring to?

Regarding the seeing me in debate section''. Isn't that what debating is about?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

We'll at this point it is convincing v not convincing. That is what we have the power to discern. From that pov it is more convincing than not.

For you it is more convincing than not. And that rather speaks volumes.

On a side-note, you may need to educate your auto-correct to accept "well" rather than "we'll".

 

[Write4U]

Are you going to ask me to produce facts about a unicorn's horn before we can decide they surely don't exist?


It is a logical argument. Your claim that we must know something in detail before we can dismiss it has been granted as false by your own argument re: the teapot.


That is not my goal. I am not here to argue against the existence of God. I am simply showing the logical in the argument "you can't dismiss something unless you first describe it in detail" is fallacious.

 

[Write4U]

Of course one can present a perfectly logical argument based on a false premise. The trick is to establish the premise as fundamentally true, from direct or indirect observation.

A computer is perfectly logical, however there is the term "garbage in, garbage out".
If I ask any dictionary or wiki for the definition of God, it will give me several definitions, but that is NOT proof of God.

 

[Sarkus]

My profile is that I am a theist, a person who believes in God. Not someone who claims that God objectively exists. So I am open to the idea that God may actually exist. But we need to know what God is, regardless of belief or lack of.

You are more than merely "open to the idea that God may actually exist". Atheists can be "open to the idea" (despite your probable refusal to accept that notion) but don't currently actually believe that God does exist. I am open to the idea, yet I don't believe. I am open to the idea of many things possibly existing without actually believing that they do.
You are not only open to the idea, you actually believe that God does exist. You also "believe in" God.

Further, the fairly standard accepted definition of a theist is merely someone who believes in the existence of God: (to provide a few examples of definitions from common sources):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism - "Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief in the existence of deities."
www.dictionary.com/browse/theist - "1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism )."
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism - "Define theism: the belief that God exists or that many gods exist"
www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe"
www.thefreedictionary.com/theist - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world"
Etc.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Hi Jan

That was a wonderful reply.

I gather you believe the scriptures, all of them, are writtings of substance and from those and with God in your heart that you are right.

I do not see the scriptures as offerring any proof of God they are what they are attempts by men to define something they wish could be reality. If you wish to claim they are of substance that is up to you.

I have made my views very clear and if you see them as lacking substance that is up to you.

You are a master of arguement but you miss the point. It is not about winning it is about proof. You offer no proof of anything other than that you argue well and avoid addressing the OP.

I said earlier I am very happy I did not offend you and you chose to throw that in my face. You mock my grace in avoiding conflict and you chose to be confrontational which suggests to me you miss the message of all the scriptures.

I politely offer you an appology and you want to continue to belittle me and my views so what am I to do. Well I turn the other cheek and yet you see that as opportunity to strike again and again clearly you wont be content until I lose conscienceness. Poor behaviour on your part in my view.


I do not want to argue with you. Your need to argue suggests it would be unkind of me to confront you with a reality you are unable to entertain.

But you go on and on no doubt confirming to others that it is indeed you that offers no substance and avoid addressing the OP and that you are intent on using this thread to indulge your desire to have "a warm and fuzzy" chat about your superior understanding of God.

I understand it must give you joy and I am very very happy for you but unfortunately you fail to address the OP.

Can you address the OP? That is the only question to be answered.

May I request you keep your answer simple following a point by point format.

Now try hard and be polite and respectful and prove to the forum you have more to offer than bluster and wit, provide something substantial pertaining to the OP which hinted at proof of God otherwise give it a rest.

Alex

 

[Billy T]

... let's somehow get a picture of what God is supposed to be, regardless of whether we believe in Him/It or not. ... Jan

OK. The evidence is that he/it does not curb the prevalence of cruelty on earth. Perhaps he can not as he dwells very deep in the ocean, and does not know what takes place on the surface, and even if he did, is powerless to change human's evil activity towards other humans. Thus, this might be your requested picture of such a God, but probably not as it is very specific and we have no information, other than man made fables, but it could be as there is no reason to believe the fables.

If this is God (and not a photo shop creation) Then I do believe God is real.

Can you give an alternative picture* you think is more accurate, and of course, explain why it is?

* A “word picture” would be OK, if you have reasons why those words explain man's inhumanity to man better.

 

[DaveC426913]

My profile is that I am a theist, a person who believes in God. Not someone who claims that God objectively exists. So I am open to the idea that God may actually exist.

I must say, I am quite taken aback.

That is a very enlightened outlook.

No, I am not being facetious or sarcastic. I am sincere.

To believe in the good that a God can bring to onesself, without the requirement that it must exist (and thus must exist for all) is quite an enlightened view.

I have struggled with a similar issue, but from the other side, as an atheist. I see a lot of good that is emergent from a belief in God. It's just the premise - that God actually exists - that I can't accept.

You sir, have impressed me.

 

[Sarkus]

Don't be fooled, DaveC, Jan may say he is merely "open to the idea" that God exists but he believes in the objective existence of God, as evidenced by the way he considers the KCA to be proof of God's existence.
Such a proof is not a subjective matter.

Further evidence is in the way Jan considers atheists to simply choose to be ignorant of God, rather than being "open to the possibility" that God does not actually exist objectively.

The notion of there being benefits of belief in God is not disputed on a subjective basis, and is this is all Jan was promoting then it doesn't tally with the language used.
So no, you may be impressed with the view that Jan has recently stated but please don't be fooled into thinking that is Jan‘s actual view.
Jan believes in God, and in the objective existence of God, and Jan struggles to understand why it is that atheists don't share that belief.

If Jan claims that he is merely "open to the idea" that God exists then either he has had a massive change of outlook in the last few days or he is simply trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Just simply ask him.

 

[Daecon]

Sure, just simply ask him - but don't be surprised when Jan continually, consistently, deflects and avoids answering the question.

 

[Yazata]

My profile is that I am a theist, a person who believes in God. Not someone who claims that God objectively exists. So I am open to the idea that God may actually exist.

JI must say, I am quite taken aback.

That is a very enlightened outlook.

What kind of "belief in God" can one have if one doesn't believe that God objectively exists?

To believe in the good that a God can bring to onesself, without the requirement that it must exist (and thus must exist for all) is quite an enlightened view.

I have struggled with a similar issue, but from the other side, as an atheist. I see a lot of good that is emergent from a belief in God. It's just the premise - that God actually exists - that I can't accept.

I can imagine holding a concept of God as kind of an ideal, I guess. An idea that may or may not correspond to anything in objective reality, but nevertheless embodies one's goals, values and virtues to the utmost degree. A guide, an exemplar, something to emulate. (For Christians, Jesus sometimes plays that role. For Muslims, it's the Prophet and his companions. For Buddhists, the Buddha. For Confucians the idealized virtuous Duke of Zhou.) The word 'truth' sometimes functions in the same heuristic way, I guess, more as an ideal than as a concrete reality. We are always striving towards towards discovering the truth, but can never be sure that we believe today won't be overturned tomorrow.

But I don't think that Jan is suggesting that. I think that Jan is a 'Hari Krishna'. He/she seemingly believes that God is identified with so-called 'Krishna Consciousness'. So God isn't something to be sought outside in the objective world, but rather something to be sought within, in our own subjectivity. Apparently the object of Krishna consciousness (one's true self which is believed to somehow already be associated with God) is believed to exist within everyone and God-realization available to all, if individuals only open themselves up to the experience. That's what, in Jan's estimation, atheists are afraid to do.

 

[DaveC426913]

What kind of "belief in God" can one have if one doesn't believe that God objectively exists?

I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but I still avail myself of WWJD moments.
In my view, the Jesus story was popularized as a way to give people a role model of human-level behavior (thus, What Would Jesus Do). The lessons are just as valid, regardless of whether or not the legend is true.
My point being, a model doesn't have to be objectively extant in order to be useful.

Don't be fooled, DaveC, Jan may say he is merely "open to the idea" that God exists but he believes in the objective existence of God, as evidenced by the way he considers the KCA to be proof of God's existence.
Such a proof is not a subjective matter.

Further evidence is in the way Jan considers atheists to simply choose to be ignorant of God, rather than being "open to the possibility" that God does not actually exist objectively.

The notion of there being benefits of belief in God is not disputed on a subjective basis, and is this is all Jan was promoting then it doesn't tally with the language used.
So no, you may be impressed with the view that Jan has recently stated but please don't be fooled into thinking that is Jan‘s actual view.
Jan believes in God, and in the objective existence of God, and Jan struggles to understand why it is that atheists don't share that belief.

If Jan claims that he is merely "open to the idea" that God exists then either he has had a massive change of outlook in the last few days or he is simply trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
Just simply ask him.

True. Nonetheless Jan seems to recognize that useful and extant are not concepts joined the hip. There's some wiggle room. That may be the first step across a bridge that can help atheists and theists co-exist.

It may inspire new dialogue, concentrating less on the objective existence (or nonexistence) of something than on the good it can do. Maybe I'm just tired of the same old he's real he's not real debates.

The notion of there being benefits of belief in God is not disputed on a subjective basis

I strongly disagree. In my experience, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting an atheist that believes no good can come of it except to fill asylums.

 

[exchemist]

I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, but I still avail myself of WWJD moments.
In my view, the Jesus story was popularized as a way to give people a role model of human-level behavior (thus, What Would Jesus Do). The lessons are just as valid, regardless of whether or not the legend is true.
My point being, a model doesn't have to be objectively extant in order to be useful.

I think there is a lot in this. I am convinced that the primary purpose of most religions is to provide a guide to living one's life. My own approach to Christianity these days is very much along these lines. I consider myself agnostic, but I do value the teaching and traditions of the church and the example of Christ set out in the gospels.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think there is a lot in this. I am convinced that the primary purpose of most religions is to provide a guide to living one's life. My own approach to Christianity these days is very much along these lines. I consider myself agnostic, but I do value the teaching and traditions of the church and the example of Christ set out in the gospels.

And that is what I would call new dialogue between atheism and theism.

 

[exchemist]

And that is what I would call new dialogue between atheism and theism.

Actually, I doubt it is that new. I suspect many a Church of England clergyman has operated on more or less this principle over the last couple of hundred years. But obviously it is not something people would have wanted to talk about.

 

[Sarkus]

Actually, I doubt it is that new.

Indeed. It's not even new within this forum as many, including myself, Yazata and others, have expressed the same sentiment over the years.
Very little, if anything, is new about the theism / atheism debate these days.

 

[river]

None of you ; None delve ; into ancient history of this so call " god " .

Hence we have become .........

 

[exchemist]

Indeed. It's not even new within this forum as many, including myself, Yazata and others, have expressed the same sentiment over the years.
Very little, if anything, is new about the theism / atheism debate these days.

I suspect what may be relatively new, however, is the coarsening of the terms of debate engendered by the militant "new atheists", such as Dennett and Dawkins. I can't abide the attitude of of these people. Their view of religion seems so crass.

 

[Sarkus]

Their view is needed, though. Such counterpoints are what kick-starts the debate, to at least get people talking, to start questioning what we otherwise take for granted. Otherwise there is the risk that only one side is ever heard, and that any legitimate concern that one may have of that side is simply drowned out.
At least with such people being the vocal front there is more information being disseminated and discussed with which people can then make up their own minds.

 

[river]

Agreed ; Sarkus

But people prefer to be lead ; rather than leading themselves.