Therefore... can you explain to me what God is, again despite belief or lack of?
jan.
Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
Therefore... can you explain to me what God is, again despite belief or lack of?
jan.
Unfortunately scripture is only the best source if you believe that God exists and has revealed himself through the scripture. Otherwise it is simply an historical text of the times and no more accurate about God than Lord of the Rings, or a Haynes manual on the maintenance of celestial teapots (if one exists). And at best it would be merely a collection of writings that detailed people's thoughts and stories regarding a concept that they referred to as God, albeit an idea that has permeated much, if not all, of modern society.
To those that believe in a God that specifically avoids such revelation, for example, the scriptures are simply worthless in the pursuit of understanding their God.
The fact that you consider scripture to the best source is thus an expression of your belief that God has revealed himself through scriptures. This revelation can only truly be believed in if you believe that God actually exists. So please do not state that you have done anything without expressing your belief. You haven't. But no one is asking you not to. They are merely asking you to state your understanding of God, and then, as per the reason for the thread, perhaps you might like to post your proof.
Then how do people come to believe that God is exists, from a position of not believing God exists?
And when I state it, they accuse me of belief being the reason for my understanding.
I don't believe in Superman, but I understand him (albeit to some degree).
jan.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No, I'm not doing your homework for you. I've warned you that your proof may run into difficulties without an explicit definition, but in the end it's your proof so how you choose to do it is up to you.
You just get on and offer your proof that God exists - with or without an agreed definition of God - and then we'll take it from there. How's that?
Because there is disagreement, and thus no "common" sense. Thus argument must be presented to support your position. Furthermore, relying on common sense is an appeal to popularity. If the common sense is based on something, present that something as your argument.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Defend this. Provide a quote, or stand accused of deliberate falsehood.
You tried this falsehood before,
You tried this falsehood before,
referring to this:
Last edited:
You'd probably have to ask them, but while you're at it you'd have to make sure they do really believe, so as not to get any erroneous readings.
I'd hazard that for many it is simply a case of indoctrination from an early age, a natural proclivity toward such a belief (just as some have a tendency not to believe), placing trust in someone who already believes and wanting to be like them, and before they know it they hop on to the cycle of belief.
There are undoubtedly many reasons, but in order to believe that scriptures are revelations and thus the best source of info, you need to already believe that God exists.
No, they merely point out the apparent circularity of your belief - you belive your concept of God is correct, is the only true concept, because you belive in the revelation handed down through scripture etc. All you need say is that your concept of God is that of the God detailed in scripture, provide the key aspects of this God that you feel can be proven, and then prove those aspects.
It's not rocket science.
We're not talking about "belief in" but belief in the existence of.
You don't believe in the existence in actuality of Superman, do you (I.e. as more than a fictional character)?
Anyhoo - we can all have different concepts of superman: how strong he is, what powers he has etc. And if you want to prove the existence of Superman you first have to detail the concept of Superman that you are referring to, and then go ahead and prove it.
Whether we hold the same concept or not is ultimately irrelevant to you providing proof of your concept.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I second Sarkus.
The only reason for trying to discover what you think God is is because you have said you can prove God exists. So naturally we will presume that when you attempt that, the "God" that you attempt to prove exists will be your conception of God. We need to understand that in order to understand your proof, given that there are so many alternative conceptions out there. You and I have covered at least four over the last few days, namely: Order-in-the-Universe, Complete Whole - Impersonal, Conscious Spirit who Cares for the Soul (a.k.a. Complete Whole - Personal?), Supreme Being Responsible for the Material World. And we have not even mentioned the God most commonly assumed in everyday speech in Christendom: Personal, 3 persons in one essence, Father (creator), Son (relationship with Man) and Holy Spirit (means of transmission of God's influence). So let's put that on the table , too. That makes five.
Nobody really minds that much what your specific beliefs are - though obviously you must believe in God - in some shape or form - if you think you can prove God exists!
Sorry I must have missed something.
Are we enemies?
Do I need to Don my suit of armour?
Jan
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
We don't have to be enemies, though I freely admit I am getting exasperated by your refusal to define God in suitable terms for use as the basis for this proof of yours, about which I am sceptical as you know. So we may well be adversaries: that's normal in debates.
But I've given up on the definition of God issue, so now I'll just wait for you to offer this proof and then we can have a look at it.
I'm talking about sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge or training, or the like; normal native intelligence.
Just like them good old boys over at dictionary.com think.
Relying on common sense is as stated earlier, relying on your basic intelligence, when you don't know for sure.
I don'tt hunk there is a real disagreement on your part. I think you're just not prepared to accept common sense on this issue.
Jan.
I'm talking about sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge or training, or the like; normal native intelligence.
Just like them good old boys over at dictionary.com think.
Relying on common sense is as stated earlier, relying on your basic intelligence, when you don't know for sure.
I don't think there is a real disagreement on your part. I think you're just not prepared to accept common sense on this issue.
Jan.
So you're rally going with this 'I haven't given a definition of God' routine?
And what do you mean by "suitable terms"? What more do you want?
What I want to know is do you agree that the definition that I have given (a good few times now) is a good description of God. And if it isn't. Why isn't it.
I don't give a monkey's whether you believe God actually exits or not. But I'm not going to waste time with someone, who for some reason seems scared to commit to anything that may even seem remotely positive to the existence of God.
I don't need it.
Jan.
So am I (although would dispute the "sound" - as that implies veracity - which is the very issue being discussed - or at least proof thereof).
Unfortunately we differ in what we consider to be "common sense" - thus disagreement - thus we must look to our underlying arguments. As I mentioned previously.
So you'd rather rely on your common sense than be willing to admit "I don't know"???
Sure, if pushed into a binary decision one can fall back on that, but here there is no need. I am willing to admit: "I don't know". Are you?
Furthermore, for someone who, it seems, is willing to argue that there is proof of God, why are you "relying on your basic intelligence, when you don't know for sure"? If you can provide proof then surely you do know for sure.
That's very much in keeping with the style of your responses to everything these days, isn't it: rather than face the disagreement you simply look to avoid and, in this case, you arrogantly and insultingly assume that the disagreement is artificial and the fault of the other person.
My motives are irrelevant, even if you had been correct (which you aren't): argue the comments made, not what you think of the person.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes really. I have listed five (5) different conceptions of God and you have declined to select any of them, or any combination thereof ,or any alternative to them. You have quoted some obscure texts but when I have asked you to give them a concrete interpretation you have done so but then declined to accept your own interpretation. So where does that leave us? Nowhere.
I'm not "scared" of anything here but I am not going to help you divert the debate onto irrelevancies: it is you who says you have proof that God exists, so the onus is on you to demonstrate this, for some conception of God or other that you are free to choose.
Frankly, I begin to doubt that you think you can prove it after all. This lengthy prevarication on your part suggests you are trying to avoid having to do it.
If not, that's fine, you can give it up and then I'll tell you what I think on the subject of God.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And if you use illogic to find out if your understandig of God is logical, then you're always going to come up illogical.
Yes, it is more convenient to not pick or choose any characteristic of God. It just requires blind acceptance, without question. That IS the historical application of scriptural Gods.
*Other* in what way?
As Carlin observed:
Q: "do you believe in God?'
A: "No"
Result: Boom, you're dead! (or burned, or drowned)
Q: "do you believe in God?"
A: "Yes"
Q: "do you you believe in my God?"
A: "No"
Result: Boom, yo're dead! (or burned, or drowned)
That is the history of belief in an unidentifiable scriptural God. Chaos, confusion, zealotry.
But ask yourself, if we could come up with a fundamental characteristic of the Universe that does not require a sentient God, would you still believe in God, even if that entire concept has become unnecessary?
Because mathematics are the universal rules by which physical things interact. There is no mystery at all and that's why we can logically symbolize these logical mathematical functions.
The mystery is created by scripture, which does not claim that God works mathematically, but "in mysterious ways"
Now, if you were to agree that God functions in an implacable mathematically way, then perhaps we can find common ground, such as a concept that universal mathematics constitute a form of pseudo-intelligent function, which might be given an abstract identity, such as Bohm's "insight intelligence".
But as it stands, I see no way to reconcile Scientific Knowledge with a sentient Supernatural Being which cares about the universe in general and humans in particular and has an active part in the evolution of the universe. There is no shred of proof for the necessity for such a causality. Causality does not require sentient motivation or emotion.
*Positive* and *Negative* potentials (in close proximity) are sufficient for causal dynamical action.
But as long as you persist that God is an emotional intelligence, who cares about and interferes with universal functions, there is nothing to discuss, because you have provided no proof of its necessary existence in any form and at any level, but it denies the value of Science which is interested only in how the universe works, which will eventually lead to knowledge of why the universe came into existence
Last edited:
No we don't differ, you are using another definition of common sense, but that definition is not relevant to this discussion, as I am using common sense in the way it is defined.
Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.
This definition doesn't apply, because we aren't discussing common things. But as there are more people who believe in God, than not, one could predict that it is more common that people think God is a sentient being, than not.
Common sense good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
If we are conscious, and care about people and things, then it is reasonable to assume that God does (if we are His emanations).
I don't know, that I don't know.
I'm still joining dots.
I don't know what you mean by a binary position.
I'm prepared to give reasons, and cite evidence in support of the existence of God.
Unfortunately I'm up against people who will fight tooth and nail to remain willfully ignorant on the subject matter.
What is your disagreement?
That is rich coming from you.
jan.
The only concept of God I recall you mentioning was Pantheism, and I dealt with that by showing you it was not only a scriptural idea, but it is simply the belief in an aspect of God. So it's not a new thing, nor is it different to God.
Obscure? By whose standard?
What do you mean ''declined to accept your own interpretation''?
You're talking nonsense.
Yes you are. You're smart enough to know that if God's existence makes more sense than your current world view, you would be a fool to deny it.
So you'd rather stay in ignorance. You're not interested in knowing God exists. That much is becoming clear.
If you were interested, you wouldn't question my methods. You would comply just to see if such a proof is possible.
Instead you put up barriers and blockades.
This lengthy prevarication is your doing, not mine.
Like I said, you don't want to know.
Don't worry about it. Remain willfully ignorant.
jan.