Over 300 Proofs of God's Existance

The concept of free will is where the mental gymnastics come in.

Definition #1 off of m-w.com-

Works. God knows what you will pick and thus offers you choices that fit in with God's plan.
Definition #2 off of m-w.com-

We can ignore the fact that the existence of the human is a prior cause to the choice being made. We can also ignore the fact that the existence of a choice is a necessary prior cause to choosing something.

This definition refers to the conjecture that humans make completely random decisions. Ok, lets see a logical, ordered, and valid argument for randomness (however, do not make the argument for randomness based upon reading this message, that would not be random and would indicate that this message was a prior cause to the argument).

Belief in God is a conscious intellectual decision because God takes care of you despite your disbelief (and/or your understanding of why you need to be treated the way you are).

Proof might scare the hell out of you. I have no ill will towards hamsters, but sometimes they are scared of me picking them up. I know that I should slowly introduce myself to 'new' hamsters so I do not unnecessarily torment them with the present of a huge human hand until they are ready. God knows the right time to show you that God exists, and will not do it without you being properly prepared (with knowledge from other people telling you that God is nice, loving, etc., you don't have to be afraid of God, even though God might think its funny that you are afraid of God). God even provides you with lots of stuff to amuse yourself with (the universe) while you are acclimated to God.

A lot of atheists aren't ready to meet God because they judge God as bad. If a hamster thinks humans are bad, it is not ready to be handled by humans. Maybe let the hamster sniff your hand every once in a while or something, until it gets used to you and you can pick it up without it spazzing. Some hamsters might not get used to humans, but they can't live in the wild, so you either have to kill them or take care of them without ever touching them (which is sorta sucky, but if you don't feel like killing something just because you know it can't handle your presence, you have to keep on taking care of it like your other hamsters). Of course, God will not pick up those who do not want to be picked up by God, however, it is probably no fun for God to eternally provide for a hamster that won't even let God pet it (however, if anyone knows how to get a hamster to want to be petted, God does).

 

Now you are trying to have it both ways. If God is giving us the choices that He sees as fitting within a plan, there is still a limit on free will. People do indeed make decisions that are not logical, even if those decisions are affected by previous knowledge and experience. We are still completely free to make any decision we choose, regardless of how wrong, evil, or illogical anyone might think that decision might be.

You also argue that God takes care of everyone, even those who do not believe, but then go on to say that God will not pick up the "hamsters" (i.e. us) who do not want to be picked up.

Let me be clear about this: there is simply no logical proof for the existence of God. If there were, then any logical person would be capable of understanding that proof, and the need for faith would disappear. What you are talking about is simply fitting experiences to your need for proof, and then calling those experiences proof of the existence of God. It is not a matter of being scared by proof, since no such empirical proof exists.

I cannot speak for all atheists, but I don't think that it is a matter of thinking that God is bad, but only that there isn't one. It is the misapplication of God in the form of religion that has the potential to be "bad." One needs only to look at the zeal with which "believers" have persecuted non-believers over history.

The fundamental problem with accepting that God (or a god) gets involved with our day-to-day functions is that there is no rhyme or reason for how that happens. It is not based on prayer (or lack thereof), it is not based on piety or adherence to beliefs. By all accounts, "the hand of God" to which people refer is nothing more than giving credit to something unprovable whenever things go well, or saying that it is all part of a plan to make ourselves feel better when things go wrong. This is why I refer to belief as mental gymnastics--it fills the need to explain occurences that all humans have.

 

Not at all. I have a deterministic view, however the 1st definition works fine. You make 'voluntary choices or decisions' every day. The fact that you do not have an infinite number of choices does not mean that you do not make a voluntary choice or decision. You pick the choice that looks best to you.

The second definition is incorrect (not logical and nonsensicle).

Ok. I don't think I argued against this, as long as you mean 'completely' free
to choose among the existing choices that we have before us.

God will not reveal God's presence to those that are fearful or unbelieving because it is not good for these people. I didn't put it straight before because I have hamsters on my mind and wanted to talk about them.

The existence of something is proven by that somethings existence, nothing else proves it.

Never argued to prove the existence of God to you. The proof is God. If God doesn't reveal God's existence to you, you don't have the proof. I can't prove it, I am not God.

Ok.

 

Kharakov

What you have asserted all along is that there is a God. You have stated that we may "choose to ignore that fact," but 'fact' implies proof. Saying that "God exists, therefore He exists," is circular reasoning. I am perfectly willing to accept that people have faith that God exists, but that does not necessarily make it so.

 

Kharakov [a different perspective...totally opinion. a hypothetical]

This is where you fall down.
You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what a god would do..or why..
Who gives you credentials to speak for god...?
Certainly not god.

You suggest that the fearfull and unbelieving are some subspecies of man...
YOU.. Are the fearfull and unbelieving...

Why..??
Your fear has driven you to believe a thing without ANY of the requirements of proof you would apply to real life..
You believe fire burns> why..it happened to you.
You believe occam exists> because you can MEET him.
You believe chechnya exists..Cause you can go there...bad move

Yet you believe a god exists .
By what 'REAL PHENOMENA' do you base this position...?
The bible? its a book ... not a fact.
Anything else?? no....

Your unbelief in our human skill to find answers has driven you from the only method that has found any...[answers]
Before reason was applied by man we were ANIMAL

Now occam does not say there is no god...
He says you and religion have no idea of what it may be.

That..is agnosticism

Agnostics are, by the criteria of the reason you reject.
[the same reason that allows you to type you opinion on a PC, and for us to read it]

The only 'religion' [theistic position]that connects with reality.
[reality being existent phenomena]

Occam

 

Fact implies existence in objective reality. Objective realities existence is something that either we except on faith or we are solipsists (as long as we are using logical reasoning). You have no absolute proof that anything exists besides you and your thoughts (you consider "objective reality" to be a thought if you lack faith in its existence).

Actually I said "God exists, therefore God exists", didn't imply a masculinity or femininity to God's existence. God is a little bit more than either, or the sum of the parts.

Yup. Complete the circle. Nice job. Existence sorta does that. If you refer to something that exists, and say it exists, pretty much a circle. Of course, this is not proof of existence of that something, as with the existence of anything other than our self, we have to except the existence of objective reality on faith.

Exactly. Only God's existence makes it so.

 

Actually, if you look at the world around you, you can see what God does. In addition, I have many ideas about what God does and why God does it. These ideas can be incorrect, which is why I test them against what I have already learned, and what learning is gained (you have to retest your ideas if you gain additional information). Of course, without all the facts, what I say is conjecture- I am not God.

Last time I looked, I had no diploma, credentials, or certificate saying that I could speak for God. All I have is what I have learned about God.

I never said they were a subspecies of man.

Unsubstantiated false claim, like your last.

Another false claim. I require a degree of proof for everything that I believe.

My experiences of God.

Another false claim. Read the statement above.

Another unsubstantiated false claim. If I did not believe in the human skill to find answers (reason), I would not use it to find answers.

Unsubstantiated claim.

Which I argued for until I knew otherwise (agnosticism graduated to gnosticism).

I do not reject reason. I embrace it.

You cannot show that anything is not connected with reality. All positions exist in reality and influence it. Without faith in objective reality, we are limited to the knowledge that we (the individual) exists. Gnosticism takes the position that we can learn about objective reality through faith and reason. Agnosticism is limited to solipsism, the denial of the existence of anything besides the self. Cogito ergo sum is as far as agnosticism will take you. Faith that objective reality exists is the first step towards gnosis. Faith is required for true knowledge.

 

Hogwash. Circular reasoning is not an asset. A rock exists because anyone who comes in contact with it sense it in some way. There is no faith whatsoever involved. You are arguing the equivalent that when I cover my eyes and can no longer see you, you no longer exist; I must have "faith" that you still do.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to ascribe gender to God, it was just the use of a pronoun.

 

But it is pretty funny. Especially when someone thinks your joke is an argument.

Without faith you can only prove your own existence. To prove that you didn't make up the rest of the universe in your own mind you have to take the leap of faith that the universe actually exists outside of your own thoughts and imaginings about it. The fact is, most non-solipsists have a firm (if not unshakable) faith that the universe is objective reality outside of themselves, and have not relied purely upon logic to grasp this concept. You might call faith in objective reality ASSUMPTION NUMER0 UNO for all dealings between your mind and the universe.

How can you prove that all of this is not in your mind? You cannot. However, you already have faith that it is not. Reason fails without faith.

Not what I was arguing.

Sure.

You know, you are ~19 years over the age limit of trust, and I am ~1.7 years below. I don't know if I believe that you believe what you are arguing.

 

Kharakov

1. To look at reality with the eyes of human reason DOES NOT say there IS a god.
Is indicates such.
Indications are not fact.
The organisation MAY not be a result of direction.

Reason cannot say there is a god because reality shows indications of rational
organisation....
All it can say is 'there may be'' [agnosticism]

2.And what have you learned about god?
Please..SHOW occam the phenomena that taught you something about god...

3.You say you have experience of god...
Then that experience must have come from outside of you...
a phenomena.
Or..do you speak of purely subjective experience. Occam has those when he goes to sleep.

4. Your agnosticism turned to gnosticism from what real experience...?
Show occam the phenomena that resulted in this experience.

5. Your last statement is false..

Gnosticism does not say we can learn about reality through faith and reason
It says there is a god,, And reason will be bent to that belief...desire.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with solipsism...
Solipsism is the belief that all reality is an subjective one...
Reality exists as a different thing in the heads of every human...and nothing else is real..A logical contradiction.
For an individual to exist.. a reality must exist outside of it to support that existance

Agnosticism is this............

We do not have the data to define or explain a god...wether it exists or not or its methods. There is no real phenomena besides indicative in the rational process to indicate there is a god.
Agnosticism is nothing but humans saying "i dont know"

If you are not able to say i dont know...Then this is psychosis is it not?

For humans know only one thing absolutely...and that is nothing to do with god.

Faith that reality exists is not required...
For as occam exists ...cogito ergo sum...
Then Reality MUST exist to underpin his personal logical existance...

There must be a reality for occams reason [cogito ergo] to exist IN

Faith is not required..
Occam has amended the classic 'cogito ergo' with this.

I reason therefore i exist
And thus..
A reality exists...
To support the existance of reason...
[for reason cannot exist without 'a' reality to exist IN.]

This cannot be shown to be incorrect.
And occam asks why no-one has proposed it before..it is almost intuative

Occam

 

One more time.........Too funny!

 

That's hillarious.

I heard the most precious thing from my friend's little sister. Everyone was watching a movie and she was snuggled up with me on a fold-out chair and I was reading a book to her about opossums and out of nowhere, she said, "Jessie?" and I replied, "Yeah?" to which she went on, "I don't believe in Satan," as she shook her head with these big innocent bulgey eyes.

"Good" I said.

Then she fell asleep.

hahaha. It was soo funny.. yet weird. I'm glad she's not all brainwashed by her neocon friends. The town is one big pile of evangelical conservatives.

 

Identinty crisis

You friends little sister is wiser than 95% of humanity...
SHE ..should be a prophet...But occam wishes no such media attention on any human but the most evil
And she definitely is not....


Occam

 

Reason doesn't 'say' anything. Reason is simply the focus of the mind.

If I was God, I would.

yup.

All experience is subjective unless we have faith that it comes from objective reality.

Until similar experiences happen to you, you will not understand from me explaining them.

Sorry, I didn't mean gnosticism in that manner. Simply refer to the roots- gnostic means known/knowable; agnostic means unknown/ unknowable (from greek roots), so as the agnostic view states God is unknowable, the Gnostic view states God is knowable (which is all that I meant, not that crazy ass gnostic religion which may be very entertaining).

Solipsism is the belief that nothing exists besides the self. You are completely alone. The latin roots of the word are Solus (alone) and ipse (self).

I am saying, learning about God is possible as learning how to integrate sin x.

You have faith that reality exists outside of your own mind.

Unless that reality is your mind, in which case reality exists within and is part of your mind (your mind does not exist within reality, reality is your mind). This is the only thing you can logically draw from 'I think therefore I am'. Your faithfulness to the existence of a reality outside of your own mind is strong.

Just because you have faith that something exists outside of your own mind does not mean that it does. Your faith (in an outside reality) is the foundation of your reasoning.

example-

You expect yourself not to know everything (about 'reality') so you think things will happen for which you do not have knowledge of- these things could be creations of your own mind.

You think 'I do not know everything about X' and X is a creation of your mind with the idea that there are things that you can learn about X in the future. So you come up with ideas about X and decide whether they are wrong or right. You believe that someone will come along and tell you that you are wrong or right about X and your mind creates that someone that tells you about X. Because you think in language X you assume that there must be others that think in language Y that corresponds to similar experiences to yours. Thus new languages are born. You do not believe you speak all of them, so you do not understand some of them, but you do believe that when you hear the language spoken that there is a mind guiding it (outside of your own). You keep on believing these things without the absolute knowledge that they are anything other than creations of your own mind. You call this set of things 'reality', and say that it exists outside of your mind.

If you are intellectually honest, you must acknowledge that 'reality' could be a creation of your own mind. This is were faith comes in- faith in a greater reality outside of yourself. Without faith, 'I think, therefore I am' is the limit to logical reasoning (the mind can only know that it (the mind) exists).

 

You continue to state that what you know comes from God, which is, for the nth time, unprovable. Saying that it is so does not make it so. If you embraced reason, you would be able to admit that faith in God is not based on it.

The problem with much of your reasoning is that you are talking about reality that can be demonstrated empirically and trying to say that it is subjective. There is simply no empirical test for faith in God. You cannot continue to claim to embrace reason and believe that "because I believe so" suffices as proof. Proof does not come in degrees and there is no element of proof involved in faith. If there were, on what basis could I disagree with you?

The Bible is no more of a proof than your statements. "X is true, therefore X is true" is a basic logical fallacy.

I do not deny that you believe what you believe, just don't confuse faith with proof.

 

I am not trying to prove it through argument. It is a statement of fact. Whether or not you except this as true indicates whether or not you understand that everything comes from God (including people who do not grasp this very basic concept).

But it is confirmed by it.

I have never said this. I have been arguing for the objective existence of reality based upon faith in its (objective realities) existence.

It would be foolish to believe in something for which there is no evidence. I except the scientific communities revelations about the natural world based upon my own subjective experience of the veracity of their claims. Likewise, I accept God's existence based upon God showing me that God exists.

Of course not.

Well, there is the element of having your faith in God justified. Continued faith in God without justification (by God) would be pretty pointless.

It's just part of the proof. The proof is the whole proof, not simply a part.

Yup. I know this. When arguing in a forum where you assume people have an understanding of logic, you sometimes make a funny. 'God exists, therefore God exists' is an example of logical humor. You just didn't get it, did you?

I never did. Faith in something can be justified by that something. Afterwords, faith takes on a new dimension, more along the lines of confidence.

 

I doubt that holds any merit in this type of discussion.

paraphrased: "I know that God exists because he tells me that he does."

In other words faith.

Faith tells you to believe no matter what, even if all the evidence suggests otherwise....

 

Do you understand the difference between telling someone something and showing them something (with evidence to back up your claim)? Logically, you cannot accurately paraphrase the statement 'X showed me Y' with 'X told me Y', the statements mean entirely different things.

I wasn't aware that faith speaks. In addition, I'd say that faith is something that some individuals are limited too based upon their lack of ability/desire to understand and/or come to terms with God. These individuals are limited to an existence of lesser understanding, however, it is not necessarily a worse existence (it may be an easier existence, which could explain why faith is stressed more than understanding). Faith in God is a much simpler way of life than trying to check the path of every strange quark to make sure things are going to be ok.

 

I also share your views here. I decided that I did not believe in the Devil, Lucifer, Satan, Old Nick, whatever his name is, when I was eleven. Ever since then, I have dared 'him', to show himself to me, face to face. I have taunted and insulted and berated him to no avail. If he does exist, he is not one to answer to my challenge. I used to, but no longer do, call him out when in the presence of Christian friends, who would become very nervous and admonish me and warn me to stop. I could see fear in their eyes.
I believe that if we trust our hearts and try to be as loving as we can imagine, the fears we have will shrink, and our self esteem will blossom. Then, even if old cranky pants exists, he can't touch us.
And maybe we could send the papparrazzi to his place.