Proof of God

[enlightenment]

So you admit that your assertion that 'there is no God' is unfounded
because of these "gaps" in religion?

I said no such thing.

 

[c0de]

I said no such thing.

Then you obviously don't agree with it, and base your entire
view on life on it rite? That 'there is no God'? So then defend it
in a debate right here. Start a new thread, and lets see what
your beliefs are really made of.

You started a thread ridiculing religion and religious people.
Now lets see you defend your views against their inquiry.

 

[Vajradhara]

. Our beliefs are beyond reason, not
below it.

namaste Code,

wouldn't that then imply that using tools such as "reason" would be fairly pointless in such a discussion?

if, indeed, your views are outside of, below, beyond or whatever metaphor you choose, reason then there can be no recourse to reason to defend or establish those beliefs.

what really can be said about something that lies outside the remit of reason?
metta,

~v

 

[c0de]

what really can be said about something that lies outside the remit of reason?

I'm glad you asked

There is a difference between something which
encompasses something, and something which is
encompassed itself. That which encompasses can
translate itself into a lower medium, but that which
is encompassed itself, can never go beyond its own
boundaries.

Example:

In mathematics, a higher dimensional being would be
able to come down into a lower dimension. But a
lower dimensional being can never travel upwards.
Because the higher dimension encompasses the lower,
it is not limited by it, but is beyond it.

So if the idea of God, is beyond reason, this does not
mean that we can never discuss God in terms of rationality.
Because discussing God through reason is something which
is encouraged by God. He gave us reason to ponder on things.
Abraham pbuh arrived at the conclusion that there could only be
one God through using his mental faculties, did he not?
(I know your an atheist, but humor me on this)

So this is why I believe that it is an obligation for every
believer to make an effort to rationalize his beliefs and faith.
Otherwise, those who call themselves "atheists" will always
have an upper hand in any confrontation. I believe that God
has given man enough reason to be able to rationally prove
His existence....

But like I said before, this does not mean everyone will
agree that there is indeed a God. Because faith is something
which is given by God, to whomever He chooses. This is why
the purpose of this thread was never to convert people. Just
to challenge the idea that God can not be proven through
logic. And this challenge remains open to whomever wishes
to step up to the plate....

 

[Paladin]

I'm glad you asked

There is a difference between something which
encompasses something, and something which is
encompassed itself. That which encompasses can
translate itself into a lower medium, but that which
is encompassed itself, can never go beyond its own
boundaries.

Okay, I'm with you...

Example:

In mathematics, a higher dimensional being would be
able to come down into a lower dimension. But a
lower dimensional being can never travel upwards.
Because the higher dimension encompasses the lower,
it is not limited by it, but is beyond it.

Not sure I follow you here, well, I do follow the reasoning, just the connection to mathematics has me scratching my head.

So if the idea of God, is beyond reason, this does not
mean that we can never discuss God in terms of rationality.
Because discussing God through reason is something which
is encouraged by God. He gave us reason to ponder on things.
Abraham pbuh arrived at the conclusion that there could only be
one God through using his mental faculties, did he not?
(I know your an atheist, but humor me on this)

Ok

So this is why I believe that it is an obligation for every
believer to make an effort to rationalize his beliefs and faith.
Otherwise, those who call themselves "atheists" will always
have an upper hand in any confrontation. I believe that God
has given man enough reason to be able to rationally prove
His existence....

Hmmm... some unfortunate connotations here.

But like I said before, this does not mean everyone will
agree that there is indeed a God. Because faith is something
which is given by God, to whomever He chooses. This is why
the purpose of this thread was never to convert people. Just
to challenge the idea that God can not be proven through
logic. And this challenge remains open to whomever wishes
to step up to the plate....

Actually, most belief systems are fairly bulletproof in practice, just listen to an atheist and a theist go at it. I've seen it go for pages with no clear decisive victor. I know how important this is to you Code, but I wonder if viewing reason and logic as a definite vehicle for encompassing that which transcends those things isn't a mistake.
And I wonder too about how we have always spoken in language that is somewhat arrogant if you think about it. By viewing certain propensities as being gifted and therefore part of a divine scheme we run the risk of purporting to know the mind of God.

I'm just sayin

 

[c0de]

Hey Mark

Not sure I follow you here, well, I do follow the reasoning, just the connection to mathematics has me scratching my head.

Ok, lets take the example of Time.

We can never fully understand or encompass the concept of
Time, yet, you will find watches and clocks everywhere, correct?
The point being that just because something is beyond our reason
and rationality, does not mean that we can not translate it into
our own terms to make sense of it, in as much as our relationship
to that thing/factor/Being goes. So just because God is obviously
beyond human reason, does not mean that nothing can be said
about God (as Vaj suggested.)

Actually, most belief systems are fairly bulletproof in practice, just listen to an atheist and a theist go at it. I've seen it go for pages with no clear decisive victor.

But we didn't go at it at all. No rebuttal to post #1 was posted.
Tao tried earlier, didn't really get anywhere... This is just an attempt
by an amateur (which is me) anyway. In fact, it was my first post on
this forum. So obviously, even my own views have changed on this issue
somewhat.

By viewing certain propensities as being gifted and therefore part of a divine scheme we run the risk of purporting to know the mind of God.

But remember, I am not saying that I am one of those guided.
For all I know, I could be the one misguided, and everyone else could
be right. All I am saying is that faith is a bestowed property, and no
one knows who has it in what quantity, except God, because only He
knows what is in a person's heart.

And in this case Mark, God has actually made His opinion clear
in my scripture at least. Faith is a quality which He bestows on man.
Man can not guide who he chooses, but God guides whomever He wills.

 

[Paladin]

I think this is why the sages we admire the most needed to communicate in the manner they did, and why the Zen masters seemed so inscrutable. They were speaking in a language that supersedes a simple syllogism, but is not devoid of its reasonableness.
I often wonder if that-which-is needs defending at all? To whom is it defended? Are we really defending that which is the all-in-everything or only our little slice of understanding?

(btw, got my IQ test back today, thank God it was negative!)

 

[Tao_Equus]

lol, refutations of your OP have been made, but as you posted in your first line or two of the OP your theory is "irrefutable" > well at least to you.

Never mind that the first part makes effort to connect gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics and infinity in a naive interplay of base and directionless verbal garbage that carefully read says absolutely nothing at all. Lots of words. Zero content.

The second part of it only reveals that you are incapable of understanding the basic tenets of the the non-believer in the scientific search on the nature or reality and that you are incapable of really getting to grips with the timescales involved in the evolution of life on Earth.

Your theory is an idle stoners musing. It does not even make any sense let alone "irrefutably". The lack of responses you like to cite in vanity are I suggest not because of any irrefutability but @ because it is garbage no one can make sense of and (b) they dont want confrontation with that code ego.

 

[17th Angel]

again with the 14yr olds and sex??????????????????????/

Yup... Geoffrey Leonard would be proud... Nick should see if he has MSN and add him to your buddy list. Wouldn't that be awesome... So much to talk about and connect with... Amazing.

Any, and I would argue every, scientist working in a related field would I am sure state that science is as yet far from understanding what reality is. So to extract isolated bits of the scientific enquiry and to use them to support a theory of god is simply ridiculous.

Or vice versa buddy o pal!

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yup... Geoffrey Leonard would be proud... Nick should see if he has MSN and add him to your buddy list. Wouldn't that be awesome... So much to talk about and connect with... Amazing.



Or vice versa buddy o pal!

But that is not strictly true. There are many theories in science that contradict religious teachings. Science never looks for a definitive answer of everything, it is far more into specialisation. An atheist may use science and even be thought of as a philosophical scientist (in the broadest sense) but on the whole his or her reaction on probing will be found to be that they do not have the answers. Very different from the irrefutable certainty of the theist. I think theists cant even begin to imagine what having no such certainty is. The very nature of their certainty precludes them from comprehending. But on these discussion sites I find there are few theists that really know what they believe. Thats why they come. To answer their own doubt. And perhaps thats why atheists come too, to answer theirs.

 

[c0de]

The second part of it only reveals that you are incapable of understanding the basic tenets of the the non-believer in the scientific search on the nature or reality and that you are incapable of really getting to grips with the timescales involved in the evolution of life on Earth.

This reveals that you are not familiar with the ideas that I have
talked about. Maybe this is my fault for not attaching any links
or secondary material or sources in the original post. And I apologize
for that.

It is a FACT that evolution could not have resulted randomly
in FINITE time without it being considered a miracle. Why do you
think the atheists like multi-verse so much? Even though it would
not negate God, but it gives them the hope that there was always
time... because only if time was infinite, could you argue that
evolution on earth happened the way it did. It does NOT matter how
"immense" your timescale is, because probabilistically the odds of it
happening are slim to none, no matter how long you stretch the
timescale, unless that time scale is infinite. Forget about evolution
of the world, we are talking about the basic fundamentals that make
up the universe, that allowed for the conditions that resulted in evolution.

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never mind that the first part makes effort to connect gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics and infinity in a naive interplay of base and directionless verbal garbage that carefully read says absolutely nothing at all. Lots of words. Zero content.

Would care to explain how exactly the interplay
between QM and Relativity is perceived as naive
by you?

Your theory is an idle stoners musing. It does not even make any sense let alone "irrefutably". The lack of responses you like to cite in vanity are I suggest not because of any irrefutability but @ because it is garbage no one can make sense of and (b) they dont want confrontation with that code ego.

nothing here but more personal attacks... If you want to have
an actual discourse, you will have to start presenting arguments
instead of mere verbiage.

 

[Dream]

vVery different from the irrefutable certainty of the theist. I think theists cant even begin to imagine what having no such certainty is. The very nature of their certainty precludes them from comprehending.

I think I understand, however that does not apply to the majority of theists nor of atheists. Irrefutable certainty is a false face put on by individuals, and it is equally disruptive to society with or without religion. Yes, some churches and others will encourage this psychological failure in members, but not just churches and only bad churches do it. Yes it is cruel. I think it is a mistake to think that you can correlate it so simply with particular 'religions' as we call them. Jerry Falwell: Do you think that it was Christianity which created him? I think that is too simplistic. He is merely a personality type.

But on these discussion sites I find there are few theists that really know what they believe. Thats why they come. To answer their own doubt. And perhaps thats why atheists come too, to answer theirs.

True. We can offer information but have little control over what happens to it. There is no point in trying to make other people see our own point of view, except to offer it. The main way to get anything out of a forum like this is to learn about ourselves, secondly as a journal of personal change, and third interraction with others and to read their journals. Slowly and much more slowly than in real life, we actually get to know each other in a way that would not otherwise be possible.

 

[enlightenment]

Bit of a random question, but short of there being NO religion, as John Lennon lamented for, what if there were just one religion?

Wouldn't that make things so much more simple?

Are the three Abrahamic faiths so polarised that some sort of 'merger' could never take place? Is their shared beleif in a divine creator LESS important to them than all the little matters they disagree on?

What I am witnessing today is that Islam is the fastest growing religion, in the world.

Something like one in five people are Muslim, worldwide, and that is pretty staggering.

For all the bad press they get, more and more people appear to be turning to Islam for their answers.

Read into that what you will..

Naturally, with this growth in popularity, the radical Chistians and radical Jews feel threatened, much in the same way that Pepsi would be Coca Cola, they have no wish to lose their share of the theist 'market', and that is why they see Islam as the threat that they do.

Jmho

 

[Nick_A]

To claim that the devil exists because the devil cannot be proven simply insinuates that the devil is a big pink ballerina elephant, because that cannot be proven either.

This is really quite amazing - what is "the Devil" aside from a human construct extrapolating our own fears and desires?

Doesn't it strike anyone else as interesting that the Jewish offering to placate "the Devil" was a goat - a scapegoat.

All you understand when you study "the Devil" is that the concept of the devil is a scapegoat for humanity's own failings.

Hi Brian

You cannot take people like Andre Weil superficially. His genius allowed him to appreciate the genius of his sister Simone who equally appreciated him which is why they were so close. Andre was a math genius:

Times obituary

He is expressing deep human psychology. The Devil for us may be a scapegoat in a sense but a revealing scapegoat. The universe is mathematically logical yet we cannot prove it. Andre Weil is describing the limitation of our psych. The same idea is in that old Hasidic tale that describes the Devil and his imp associate walking down a street when they see a man pick up a piece of the truth. The imp becomes frightened exclaiming now that he has seen the truth we wil be exposed and all will be lost. The Devil smiles at the naivety of his companion and calms him down as he tells him not to worry. the Devil says: "Don't worry, he may have found a piece of the truth but we will help him organize it.

The devil is in the details and keeps man as he is in Plato's cave. This is a revealing psychological concept rather then a demon walking down the street. It is our "interpretations" together with our inabilty to be open that assures the "devil's" supremacy.

 

[Dream]

Naturally, with this growth in popularity, the radical Chistians and radical Jews feel threatened, much in the same way that Pepsi would be Coca Cola, they have no wish to lose their share of the theist 'market', and that is why they see Islam as the threat that they do.

Actually, anyone with an ounce of paranoia feels threatened at the approach of any group we see as radical. Don't deny you are feeling threatened by radical groups in humanity, too. Your comments about theists reveal you feel they are a threat. Assuming that all Muslims are as cool headed as c0de here, then they do not feel threatened by the radical liberalism of 'atheists' and nontraditional christians. In that case, we have no need to feel paranoid either, in which case Muslims have nothing to fear from us.

 

[c0de]

There is no point in trying to make other people see our own point of view, except to offer it. The main way to get anything out of a forum like this is to learn about ourselves, secondly as a journal of personal change, and third interraction with others and to read their journals. Slowly and much more slowly than in real life, we actually get to know each other in a way that would not otherwise be possible.

That was the only purpose behind this thread.

It was never an attack on atheism, but a defense of theism.
I referred it to Enlightenment when he asked me to provide
a rationalization of my beliefs. I have stated before, and will
state again that I am not here to attack atheists or atheism,
nor am I interested in converting people... I already believe
there is no hope for this world, so why would I care about
stuff like that?

Bit of a random question, but short of there being NO religion, as John Lennon lamented for, what if there were just one religion?

Wouldn't that make things so much more simple?

Are the three Abrahamic faiths so polarised that some sort of 'merger' could never take place? Is their shared beleif in a divine creator LESS important to them than all the little matters they disagree on?

What I am witnessing today is that Islam is the fastest growing religion, in the world.

Something like one in five people are Muslim, worldwide, and that is pretty staggering.

For all the bad press they get, more and more people appear to be turning to Islam for their answers.

Read into that what you will..

Naturally, with this growth in popularity, the radical Chistians and radical Jews feel threatened, much in the same way that Pepsi would be Coca Cola, they have no wish to lose their share of the theist 'market', and that is why they see Islam as the threat that they do.

Jmho

Its not really that Islam is the fastest growing religion, its just
that all the other religions are shrinking. Most Christian countries
are below replacement levels, their populations are just not breeding.
This is what happens in post-industrial society... There is a whole
philosophy behind why, but its besides the point.. (by only a little)

The idea that one religion will solve all the problems, is the same as
saying a one world government would solve everything...
All of these are pipe dreams... One world government, or one religion,
it doesn't matter. Because unless materialism gets erased, there can
never be peace between men. And since this time will never come,
all the world improvers and all their wars and revolutions will only
serve to further the problems. Even a religion once institutionalized
furthers materialistic purposes, and such is the case with the
mainstream Christian, Jewish and Muslim establishments today.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Why do Christians read the New Testament when the Old Testament came first?

I didnt see an answer to this.. so in case you didnt get one here it is..

Testament means covenant..

Old Covenant was brought to Israel through Moses. That YHWH would be thier God and them His people. the covenant was symbolized through circumcision.

New Covenant Christians believe God gave us (gentiles and Jews alike) a new Covenant through Jesus Christ so our Covenant is with Him. The symbol of this is baptism through water into a rebirth hence circumcizing our flesh from our Spirits.

We still read the Old Testament it is holy scripture to us also.. but we see the need for Jesus Christ by reading it.. and they are both the same because we see Jesus all the way through it because some of us believe that Jesus was there from the beginning in creation in Eden and all the way through till His birth as a man in the gospels.

Hope that helps.

 

[c0de]

Hey FT,

I think there was some confusion. I wasn't asking the question,
I was answering one. (pardon the rhetorical devices)

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste code,

thank you for the post.

There is a difference between something which
encompasses something, and something which is
encompassed itself. That which encompasses can
translate itself into a lower medium, but that which
is encompassed itself, can never go beyond its own
boundaries.

1rea·son Pronunciation: \ˈrē-zən\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English resoun, from Anglo-French raisun, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanationDate:13th century 1 a: a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b: a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense ; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence
(2): proper exercise of the mind
(3): sanity b: the sum of the intellectual powers 3archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction

which understanding of reason are you using?

you'll note, clearly, that reason has nothing to do with encompassing anything it is, in the second definition, simply related to the proper exercise of the mind.

In mathematics, a higher dimensional being would be
able to come down into a lower dimension. But a
lower dimensional being can never travel upwards.
Because the higher dimension encompasses the lower,
it is not limited by it, but is beyond it.

what sort of being are you referring to? i take it one that has never been evidenced since i cannot find any information regarding higher dimensional beings.

reason is, of course, nothing like extra dimensions or beings from those dimensions.

So if the idea of God, is beyond reason, this does not
mean that we can never discuss God in terms of rationality.

yes, it does. god is beyond any reason therefore any reasonable statement that you could make would be outside, below or whathaveyou, god.

Because discussing God through reason is something which
is encouraged by God. He gave us reason to ponder on things.
Abraham pbuh arrived at the conclusion that there could only be
one God through using his mental faculties, did he not?
(I know your an atheist, but humor me on this)

no.

clearly the Jewish belief held that there were other deities, its mentioned several times that YHWV is the God of the Jews.

Just
to challenge the idea that God can not be proven through
logic. And this challenge remains open to whomever wishes
to step up to the plate....

you placed your god concept outside the remit of logic and reason and then expect to engage in a logical or reasoned discourse? i cannot imagine how or why such a situation would come about. most anybody would protest about the restrictions you've placed here.

if i told you that astronomy was beyond reason i well suspect that you would not conclude astronomical data as reasonable.. since, by the very definition i've used, they are unreasonable. this is the same situation you've created here.. by placing god outside the tools of humans' reasoning and logic no discussion can be had.... well.. i suppose it could be had but it wouldn't be reasonable or logical..

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste code,

thank you for the post.

It is a FACT that evolution could not have resulted randomly
in FINITE time without it being considered a miracle.

you're being disengenious since you know that biological evolution is *not random*. why this red herring is continually trotted out by the creationISM adherents is beyond me.. who are they really speaking to?? certainly not the moderately educated person that understands biological evolution.

Why do you
think the atheists like multi-verse so much?

we don't. many, many beings are not enamored of the Multi Worlds theory of Quantum Mechanics or Sting Theory, for that matter. in fact, i can't say that i find an overwhelming favorite for the arising of this particular universe amongst atheists... perhaps a poll is in order!

metta,

~v