ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

A Justification for the Theological Proofs of Gods Existance

Updated on March 30, 2012
The Philosophers are missing a thing or two.
The Philosophers are missing a thing or two.

Most of the theories that have been presented

on the veracity of God's existence have only one problem in common. It is the same problem that people have now. It would seem that philosophers who proposes to speak of a God of any kind as a logical being or as a rational concept fail to actually comprehend enough of the nature of eternal beings to succeed. Philosophers and laymen both look at the flawed nature of man and by extrapolation decide that perfecting oneself and finding a design within the human heart is impossible. Then by extension decide that the present man echoes the order of the universe at large and the nature of any God who might be responsible for the organization and maintainability of that universe. It amuses then that a universe, which is so well designed as to boggle the learned mind in and of itself, is one that those learned minds might try to reverse engineer into a comprehension of God. Those scientists who have come close to comprehending or at least appreciating the universe and its perfect calibrations cant fail to be in awe of any being capable of doing so. By connection people who dabble in this area, then decide that if chaos exists with humans and there is a God who has any connection to the mortals who are so flawed then there must be a chaos that an Exalted He or She deals as a co equal concept. And so they justify their own struggles rather then appreciate the right to choose which must be available if they are to appreciate the perfect infinite.

Based on these quandaries scholars usually have a hard time dealing with the possibility of a cyclical nature in creation. This concept purports the possibility of a previous cycle and even the incalculable problem of trying to figure for a beginning of cycles. This problem would give one a head ache and is acknowledged by myself as being a difficult concept to grasp but not insurmountable. The problem those who purport theologies which attempt to prove the existence of God have in even coming this far is the fact that they assume as a foundation in the existence of a thesis which precludes God from being a god of law and a possible mortal at one time having so developed. It then doesn't occur to the Theist that there is a need of allowing those who reason to experience the consequences of agency whether good or bad and then to grow in estimation as they comprehend their God who has a literal body.

Even after addressing the nature of God, scholars still can’t face the cycle issue with good grace. The whole concept that the universe exists to add light and knowledge to itself by adding members to the Brotherhood of God to their number, using a cyclical method of organization of worlds, propagating men to learn the trade boggles the learned mind. Such men can’t consider God as a being as working on in his or her separate and independent realm of responsibilities to bring about this cycle as a possibility.

Most of the anecdotal evidence (scripture) that aid this conclusion are touched by someone who had a religious bent and there wasn't a philosopher or theological minded scientist there to objectively call into question everything that was latter purported. These exclusions limit those who think themselves as rational and logical from comprehending the ends of their arguments which weren't that far off in the first place.

Thankfully not all knowledge on this subject is so polluted. Beginning with the incomprehensible fact that Joseph Smith who was not learned, was shown the foundations of the solution, a purer way has been made. It isn't without its oddities and moments in history when things happened that were awkward to explain. There are those who would try to tare down the work of Joseph and those who followed who never met these men. Those who knew them intimately, may have faulted judgement calls but to their dying day would not deny the veracity of the work they helped bring about due to the work Joseph was asked to start from on High.

It is the great and sad fact of intellectualism that those who seriously study the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price cant fail to understand that these books stand by themselves as true and are standing witnesses to the answers to life's many questions that existing scripture cannot conclusively answer. It is their origins that people object to.

understand, my friends that this isn't meant as a rant but rather a lament. As a rational being I have made such a study and attest to the veracity of the nature of God. On my path I have experienced the theophanies that have been promised to those who are pure in heart. I didn't come to my conclusion by blindly following but by understanding the eyes and senses that scripture and pattern seeking offer. In my mind all scriptural data are points on a graph in my mind. Plotting them all and then observing patterns as they present themselves seemed to be a sensible way of going about matters. I was prepared to abandon my present course if the pattern didn't favor where I started from. I am grateful I didn't have to all the same.

For Background on the theories referenced go to:


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Jaggedfrost profile image

      Jaggedfrost 7 years ago

      Essentially, I think people oppose that which they don't believe in because down deep they aren't willing to admit that they doubt their own hypothesis and they wish to shout down their own conscience.

    • Dave Mathews profile image

      Dave Mathews 7 years ago from NORTH YORK,ONTARIO,CANADA

      You choose to stand in opposition to someone you do not believe in. How can this be so? How does one challenge the existance of someone they do not believe exists?

      Strange thinking!

      Brother Dave.