The Proof God Exists (sort of).

[bluetuesday]

ahem.

 

well i don't know where this train of thought will lead or if it's already been kicked around to death by infinitely cleverer loveshackers than me, but i was just wondering about the essence of free will, as opposed to its nature or even its very existence (as blockhead's recent thread alluded to) in relation to the question of whether or not god exists.

 

my thoughts were these.

 

assuming we are free to make a genuine choice about the existence of god (of course, true freedom suggests we are free NOT to make a choice too, including the choice "i don't know" which is another debating point entirely), our freedom to choose god must logically allow freedom not to choose god.

 

which means that in a world designed by god, free will MUST logically require that no empirical proof of god is EVER possible.

 

if incontrovertible proof of the existence (or not) of god was presented, logical free will would cease to exist - 'logical' because although we could choose to ignore the evidence, that choice would be logically inconsistent.

 

now in a world NOT designed by god, whilst free will and the desire to find meaning in life may still be human traits, any proof for the existence of god (or not) would not be necessarily inconclusive. it would be random.

 

the 'no god squad' believe that the lack of evidence for the existence of god is proof that there is no god but they accept, presumably, the fact that no empirical evidence exists proving that god doesn't exist.

 

but since a lack of proof is a vital by-product of the concept of free will, doesn't the fact that any proof for the existence of god is inconclusive, place the weight of probability on the fact that god probably does logically exist?

 

but this is flawed. it depends on being able to prove that the the lack of proof is necessarily inconclusive, as opposed to merely inconclusive. it also defeats its own object by claiming to prove the existence of god and therefore threatening our free will...

 

but surely god's plan is not to be purposely obtuse. he hasn't made a secret of the fact he exists. many people, including me, know without a shadow of a doubt there is a god.

 

what i'm trying to illustrate, very badly, is that the lack of empirical evidence is always going to be inconclusive, but this takes nothing away from the argument for god's existence - in fact it strengthens it. the lack of evidence is what makes the argument possible. phew.

 

and another thing. sorry. i've never believed that those who claim that god exists and those who claim he doesn't are equal. sure, both groups have every right to their opinion, but i'm arguing that some opinions are more equal than others.

 

surely those who claim there is no god have simply not discovered him YET. time may change that. those who claim there is a god, have already discovered him. these positions are not equal in their validity. those who thought they had discovered him and find they hadn't after all have also merely not discovered him YET.

 

so at best, non-believers can only claim to know 'up to this point' the conclusions their experience has led them to believe. they cannot know for certain what they will discover in the future. not having found god can never be assumed to be a permanent state. much the same as not having found love cannot be assumed to be a permanent state. and even if you turn from the love, you can never go back to not believing it exists.

 

someone who has found god has uncovered knowledge from which there is no going back. god must exist, he must always exist from that point, ergo he must have always existed. i submit this is the stronger argument of the two.

 

any takers?

[moimeme]

I like your approach

 

but they accept, presumably, the fact that no empirical evidence exists proving that god doesn't exist.

 

Some actually don't seem to, which is where I think their argument begins to fail.

 

the lack of empirical evidence is always going to be inconclusive, but this takes nothing away from the argument for god's existence - in fact it strengthens it. the lack of evidence is what makes the argument possible. phew.

 

Because it supports the first argument, yep.

 

even if you turn from the love, you can never go back to not believing it exists.

 

I've always responded to people who ask me to prove that God exists that they should prove to me that love exists. Most don't seem to get the analogy but it's valid for exactly that reason. Both God and love are unknowable except by experience and unprovable by logic.

[UCFKevin]

You ever see a sunset where the sky is somewhat cloudy and the entire view is like a beautiful painting?

 

You ever see two people madly in love with each other who can't take their eyes off one another?

 

You ever see the movie "Wild Things" starring Neve Campbell and Denise Richardson?

 

Of course God exists. The above three reasons are more than enough proof.

[moimeme]

There's a saying by Walt Whitman:

 

"A mouse is miracle enough to stagger sextillions of infidels"

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by moimeme

Both God and love are unknowable except by experience and unprovable by logic.

 

and............ they are, of course, also the same thing.

[dyermaker]

I don't buy the God/Love comparison.

 

Love is definitely a human invention. You can pinpoint the chemicals/electrical impulses involved in love.

[bluetuesday]

but dyer, you're assuming two things. firstly that love is an emotion. i never claimed it was.

 

but even making that assumption, there's nothing in reading electrical impulses that implies they're a human invention. sure, the impulses and the conditions in which they can be recreated at will are inventions, but love as you seem to be categorizing it exists outside the human race too and would therefore also have to be a human projection.

 

secondly you're talking about human love. i didn't say god was human love.

[dyermaker]

I was responding more to Moi's argument that you can't prove Love, so not being able to prove God is okay.

 

You can prove love, you can analyze brain patterns, chemicals, etc.

[moimeme]

That, Dyer, does not prove love! It only proves the existence of chemicals and brain patterns. There are also chemicals and brain patterns associated with religious experiences. In neither instance can cause-and-effect be definitively proven. These are symptoms rather than the actual source.

[dyermaker]

k.

[loveregardless]

Every emotion, thought, action or process causes certain brain activities and has a location designated for it in the brain...some have tried to say, even spirituality itself. Many theories of thought do see god and love as the same thing, in many ways, so do I. I think that it is possible to observe as Moi said symptoms or effects of certain things in the brain, but to try to analyze the souls existence and connection with emotion is impossible. Their are no scans or test for that.

[Moose]

Originally posted by dyermaker

I don't buy the God/Love comparison.

 

Love is definitely a human invention. You can pinpoint the chemicals/electrical impulses involved in love.

 

I don't buy that Love is a human invention. How do you explain the reason God created humans? I've always thought one of the main reasons was so God could have abundance of love towards Him and humans?

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

I don't buy that Love is a human invention.

I meant romantic love, I'm sure the chemicals involved have been around forever. Well, it's not even a universal thing. Westerners have a different perception of love than around the globe--maybe that's changing now, but for centuries romantic love was defined by literature, not pragmatism. Even chemically, I'm sure love is an evolutionary construction, having two parents in love will certainly aid in raising the child, at least at the beginning.

How do you explain the reason God created humans?

That's a subject of theological debate. That was one of the biggest questions of John Calvin (the *other* JC ).

Frankly, the reason why I was created isn't an issue for me. At this point, I'll take what I'm given.

I've always thought one of the main reasons was so God could have abundance of love towards Him and humans?

Seems kind of selfish?

 

It also doesn't seem to make sense.

 

I don't understand how even though God is omniscient and all-powerful, He suffers from periodic bouts of powerlessness. Like, in my mind, if God wanted to be loved, he would have done a way better job on us.

[moimeme]

LOL - so we got created to be a fan club? That's why the accounts of heaven with everybody hanging around doing nothing but singing praises to God gags me. Any God I'd respect would want more out of the universe than to have a bunch of sycophants adoring him all the time. If that's what He wants, he could have dispensed with the idea of Earth and us and just created a heap of robo-praisers.

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by dyermaker

I don't understand how even though God is omniscient and all-powerful, He suffers from periodic bouts of powerlessness. Like, in my mind, if God wanted to be loved, he would have done a way better job on us.

 

sure, He could have made us more loving or specifically more inclined to find or believe or love Him, but where's the joy in that?

 

isn't the pleasure and the value of love defined by its being unbiddable?

[moimeme]

I don't think the trad view that you get sent to Hell if you don't follow the party line classifies it as 'unbiddable'

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by bluetuesday

sure, He could have made us more loving or specifically more inclined to find or believe or love Him, but where's the joy in that?

 

isn't the pleasure and the value of love defined by its being unbiddable?

Have you seen 'Saved' ? A lot of people take the bible and use it as a weapon.

 

In my opinion, an omniscient God would realize that his lack of clarity would cause more hate than love.

[bluetuesday]

Originally posted by dyermaker

In my opinion, an omniscient God would realize that his lack of clarity would cause more hate than love.

 

i haven't seen 'saved' or even heard of it. what is it?

 

now you're teasing.

i don't think there's a lack of clarity and neither, i suspect, do you.

[loveregardless]

I think there are many things that our human minds cannot comprehend...if you believe in the human soul, in a spirit world, angels, etc...then it is in my opinion possible that in our human form the physicality of our minds and our thinking patterns makes it impossible for us to comprehend certain things...such as our purpose and origin. But in accordane with such a belief in "soul" or "spirit" is it not possible that our "soul" or "spirit" may know but our human selves might not have conscious access to such knowledge?

I certainly do not believe that God created us to love him...God created us as an extension of the love that he is...I believe there are many realities and that we chose which reality we live in. Our thinking patterns in the last few centuries have been completely focussed on the physical...when you think heavy thoughts...you can't simultaneously comprehend the more occult, the beings or truth that may exist in our non physical environment. Ever heard of the astral plane and the other planes of existance... reality of "time"...etc Dyer...I'd like to hear your opinion on those subjects.

[moimeme]

LR

 

I disagree with you on many things but I'm with ya on matters of the spirit. We mere humans can only play at comprehending the incomprehensible. But oh how we like to believe we really have enough intellectual capacity to do the job

[loveregardless]

I disagree with you on many things but I'm with ya on matters of the spirit. We mere humans can only play at comprehending the incomprehensible. But oh how we like to believe we really have enough intellectual capacity to do the job

 

Ahh but what would be the fun of agreeing all the time. What would we learn from each other if we all had the same thoughts and opinions!?

And Dyer, I don't think God is trying to be ambiguos or that God's presence lacks clarity...I think God was never meant to be confined to one defintion or another, one name or another, one religion or another...it is our simple human minds that insists upon defining and explaining everything...divinity knows no such restrictions.

[Karina]

If GOD under temptaion didnt proof himself to SAITON, why would he ever prove himself to us sinners

[bluetuesday]

i believe jesus said to satan, 'do not tempt the lord thy god'. meaning, don't make him prove he can do stuff by saying 'if you were god you would'.

 

satan knew jesus was god. that's why he showed up in the first place. it had nothing to do with trying to prove to satan that god existed.

 

logically, satan himself is proof of the existence of god.

[dyermaker]

The way it worked was, Jesus was starving in the desert.

 

Satan said, "If you're the son of God, turn this rock into bread".

 

Then Jesus said that "man cannot live by bread alone"

 

The temptation was that Satan offered food for the fasting christ, as well as the chance for all these worldly pleasures. The lesson would never have been "do not tempt the lord" as yield to temptation is sinful, and god can never sin. The lesson was that you shouldn't test the lord, i.e., make him prove his divinity--a lesson echoed in 'doubting thomas'.

[bluetuesday]

you are so wise dyer.

 

just wanted my admiration on permanent record.