Because we cannot label that which has no true name. God exists as a comfort not as a reallity. I use the word God in the place of enlightenment, for to me, that is the true nature of the beast.
God exists within us and it is tangible feeling when you feel there is a force which guides us through all turmoils of life.
God exists within our selves and also He exists when we were not there or when we will die. We depend for our existence to His mercy.
[51:22] And also in your own selves. Will you not then see?
[51:23] And in heaven is your sustenance, and also that which you are promised.
[51:24] And by the Lord of the heaven and the earth, it is certainly the truth, even as it is true that you speak.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=21
The simplest proof I can give anyone is in understanding two little sentences.
(a) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be understood.
(b) Life doesn't require any knowledge of any G/god to be lived.
You're welcome. And there's no need to call me sir.
Well I do it our of respect for you and honor for what my parents have taught me.
How is this proof of God not existing? You only say people don't need to know God to live.
In mathematics, the only way to prove that something does not exist is to show that its existence would contradict some other proven statement. In the case of God (as described by the majority of Christendom), we can actually more generally demonstrate self-contradiction.
Consider that God is generally attributed with being omniscient. Now, although this does not necessarily include prescience (knowing the future), most in Christendom believe God to be prescient as well. Take as support any example of prophecy in the Bible.
Having foreknowledge of the future, however, directly contradicts other qualities attributed by definition to God. For example, God is also said to have repented of his own thoughts (if you do not believe this, see Exodus 32:14 or Jeremiah 26:19 in which God changes his mind about things). The contradiction is obvious - prescience means knowing what is going happen in the future, whereas having a change of mind or heart implies that there was uncertainty.
So, there we have proven the typical Christian definition of God to be contradictory. What this implies in itself, however, is not the non-existence of ANY "god" whatsoever, but only that the standard Judeo-Christian notion is flawed.
ps - Yes, I am aware that the Judeo-Christian notion of God is anything BUT standardized, though I believe that I chose two traits which are fairly universally accepted. Also, I am aware that there are other ideas about God than what is widely believed in the US, but only focused on that one because I am not well-versed in other religions enough to construct such a proof.
Most eastern religions such as Zen, taoism and other forms of buddhism do not have a creator deity per say. They believe that we chose to live, in turn negating certain godly existance. This is not to say that they do not have a god, they though would rather live in the now and not worry about it. To the eastern religions, God is not important, so much as how they live their lives. To them god is not relevant to the here and now.
This is pretty clear and you do a good job of stating your point! I feel like you have more than an elementary grasp on this stuff. (It is also refreshing to see you are not full of pithy platitudes and silly quips.)
So you would say the proof that a biblical God doesn't exist is because His attributes would contradict what has been said about Him? That actually makes sense and again it seems like you understand the issue.
What if there was a way to explain such contradictions? What if there were a consistent way to alleviate such tensions? Do you feel you would believe then?
As a rational person, I would have to reconsider the possibility of such a being's existence, were it shown to be not contradictory. However, it would probably require some measurable evidence for its existence for me to consider the possibility as a probability. Even if the contradictions were resolved, I would still think that such a thing was unlikely to exist (although I would have to admit that it would then at least be possible) since there are no convincing reasons to me to believe that it was, in fact, "truth."
What's rational got to do with it?God can be as rational as you want Him to be, and irrational as He wants to be.
Take one scenario for an example, creation.
Either He made everything, or
Everything happened by chance (accident)
Either way, it's faith/belief that commands both. So, you already are a believer!
What convincing reason do you need? Every breath you take is His gift to you. (BTW, there are only so many breaths you will take, and then you will come face to face with Him, to give an account of your life.)
Haha. I see what you mean though stated a bit bluntly.
If you do believe in a God that created everything, who holds all things together by His will, etc, then it would be 'rational' for things like miracles to occur, Him to visit, etc.
For instance, the God of the bible has shown Christians they can pray for healing and He would heal. If I were to ask God to 'please heal my friend of arthritis,' and at that same moment my friend no longer had arthritis, then I would call that a miracle, but not irrational.
Of course, if you did not believe in God, then heard this story, you have unexplained phenomena which you cannot account for in your worldview. You would either dismiss it as a lie or that there is some way to explain that we do not know of.
Does that make sense?
Bluntly is about the best way on the forum.
Longwinded explanations are a waste of time, mostly.
and, as for your statement;
"Of course, if you did not believe in God, then heard this story, you have unexplained phenomena which you cannot account for in your worldview. You would either dismiss it as a lie or that there is some way to explain that we do not know of. "
That's exactly what you get from unbelievers!
Were you aware that humans can also be given sugar pills (as in, pills literally with no medicinal ingredients) and be cured of ailments, sans prayer or other intervention, if they are told that the pills will cure them? This is known as the placebo effect, and is still something of a medical mystery. Sure, it -could- be that God is intervening on behalf of those without medicine. But this explanation leaves unanswered the problem of why this effects atheists and Christians in exactly the same proportions. Clearly, asking God has little to do with it in these cases.
Additionally, in medical testing there is a concept called the p-value of a statistical finding. What this describes is the probability of such a result occurring simply by chance and is compared to the frequency with which the effect is observed. Consequently, being cured by a drug generally needs to have a very low p-value in order for the effect to be attributed to the drug and not just random chance. Now, consider all the cases where people pray to be healed of cancer, and die of cancer just the same. There are some whose cancer subsides without medical intervention, but the number is quite low, giving a very low frequency of the effect being observed. This lines up pretty well I'd think with the expectation due to pure random chance - depressingly low.
Now, I don't offer an alternate explanation. This is because I'm neither a physician nor a neurologist. All I can say is that the "effect due to prayer" is consistent with the "effect due to random chance expectation," in this case.
There is also the alternative explanation that science is discovering based on evidence, which is neither of those you offer.
True! I am a person of faith. This does not bother me to admit, since I don't have any problem putting my faith into a worldview with clear and consistent rules for deciding what is likely to be true and what is definitely not true.
That's what rationality has to do with it.
I'm very uncomfortable operating in a belief system that requires me to disregard whether or not something makes sense. Needless to say, I am much more comfortable putting my trust into a way of thinking about the world and looking for "truth" that follows meaningful and rigorous methods and encourages evidence and proof.
Imagine being put on trial in a court where "faith" was the rule of law! If the judge believed you were guilty, then you'd be whisked away to your fate without regard to such base and materialistic notions as evidence and logic.
No, I'll stick with rationality, please.
Imagine the other scenario, where the judge demands hard evidence, but has nothing more than a dozen witnesses, who, for the majority, give the same evidence that the accused is guilty of the charges laid against him. If the judge lets him off, for lack of hard evidence, a criminal goes free. If he only acts on faith, and accepts all the testimony, he will dispense justice.
That's the correct analogy to employ.
You will not discover hard proof of God, at least none that your rational mind is looking to find. You see, God revealed Himself to mankind through the life of Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is revealing Himself through frail, imperfect human beings. Jesus went on to say, "they did not believe my testimony, neither will they believe yours. But, whosoever receives you (human witnesses testimony) receives Me, and whoever receives Me, receives Him who sent Me, namely God the Father.
I doubt, seriously, that God will manifest Himself to you physically, just to impress YOU. He wants your faith to engage with Him, based on testimony. Then, you will have the (blessed) assurance, that all Christians have of both His existence, and a meaningful, active relationship with Him.
How does one measure the immeasurable?
One does not need proof, only knowing.
Humans have potential and power beyond logic.
Logic and rationality are simply a gift from God.
Mathsciguy, do you think such a thing would be unlikely to exist because you believe there is a better way to explain everything?
Yes and no. I do really believe that there is a better explanation for everything, but this is not the reason for my unbelief. I think that such a thing (as described by mainstream Christianity, anyhow) is unlikely to exist because I don't believe that I've ever seen any convincing support for its existence - other than the insistence of other human beings that it does.
The better explanation for EVERYTHING eludes me at this point, though. However, that said, I have found that probability and random processes do a fair job of explaining much of the surface that we see every day. I recognize this as an unprovable position, but its plausibility to me is higher since I can at least understand and make fairly reliable predictions about how nature behaves based upon it. In the case of a divine power, no reliable results have been produced that I know of to support such a system of belief.
It's a matter of functionality and being able to understand things based upon my worldview, to me. But that's just my opinion!
I think that the term "mainstream Christianity" pegs much of what is wrong in the world. In that description the mainstreamers are of a religion that is as well of capitalism. All in all capitalistic churchianity is flawed from the git go to fail at enlightening any one or any thing if for no other reason that all they teach and all they want is power and the next dollar dropped in the plate of beggars that is passed 2 or 3 times a week by those who need not, and the buildings they set in with a rock band and big screen is entertainment for them. I mean really is that faith or maybe fellowship with Saturday night hang overs from the bar that each click was at the night before doing dirty dancing and 2 Sunday school teachers of the same sex hoisted in a cage for drunken live sex shows with each other. I been in those bars and tossed a few back getting drunk and just happened on the spectacle, the difference is only I won't lie to you when asked if I was there and falling way short of right and morality as many churchianities preach against but still have the cover charge ink on their hands.
I can't prove what I hold in faith in the arena here, but then I feel no need to try to prove it, because spirituality is either with you or not on the wave link you choose to tune into.
Sorry that's all I got, but I'm happy with it, peace 50
I agree with you, 50 Caliber.
I know that the term "mainstream Christianity" doesn't really capture all of what could be said to be "Christianity." It doesn't even capture what is "right" about Christianity to some Christians, in fact. I imagine you are one such Christian who would disagree with the mainstream (I apologize if I have misjudged you).
However, I only chose that representation because it is (whether for better or for worse) how the majority of Americans practice their faith, and it was my purpose to address the largest population of belief that I felt capable of addressing. So, I acknowledge that a proof against "mainstream Christianity" is not by any means a proof against Christianity in general, and I didn't intend for it to be. All I want is for people to think about the things they believe. You have to start somewhere.
Well sir your notions are correct and what follows them as conclusions are correct. But your basis is flawed. In the original Hebrew the word used there in fact only meant a type of emotion, to be exact it was grief. The only reason repentance is used their is because it was the closest word ,within the parameters of the English language, to the original Hebrew word. If you take the original words that were used it does not imply a contradiction, only a change in emotion.
You are onto something like I stated earlier, but Sir Kyle Payne can offer an acceptable understanding for the problem you brought up that no longer leads to a contradiction.
Also, can you account for the laws of logic that you reference when you accuse Christianity of a contradiction?
Kyle Payne and Millercl, I will address you both in this post and hope that neither of you feel slighted (I just don't think there's any reason for me to type twice what I could type once!).
I'm aware of the discrepancy in language. In fact, I abandoned my original draft of that proof when I realized it. However, while rethinking my position, I also realized the contradiction which is in my revised version posted in this thread. The premise is not dependent on the term "repented," but instead actually relies on the implication of the change in emotion and intent that Kyle Payne pointed out.
What kind of prescient being "changes its mind" about things? The examples I cited were instances where it is written that God was going to murder a bunch of people and then changed his mind and didn't do it after all, due to intercession from a mediator (Moses, in Exodus, and himself apparently in Jeremiah). By definition, to be omniscient and prescient would mean not only to be able to foresee the actions and events surrounding you, but also to be able to foresee your own courses of action in the future AND the intercession from others. So, the contradiction still stands.
An omniscient, prescient being must have foreknowledge of every aspect of every event in the present and future, including (by definition) its own viewpoints and motives. Such a being would not ever change its mind or deviate from a planned behavior, since it would have previously foreseen the deviation and would simply have never made active the intent. Imagine path A and path B. If I know all things about both paths, and I can foresee myself taking path A, then I cannot honestly state an intent to take path B since I would know that my mind would be changed towards A anyhow.
Sorry that is so long-winded, but it is simply a more detailed explanation of the contradiction. It isn't "repented" that forms the proof, but rather the entire idea that the mind of God could be changed about something.
To Millercl, it depends on in what sense you mean. If you mean to ask if I can explain why a contradiction means that something can't be true, then no. Perhaps there is a universe where a thing can be exactly X and NOT X at the same time.
The formulation of the laws of logic, however, are a human accomplishment. But, I don't think that this is what you meant. Start a new thread about it, and we should discuss this further.
Those instances in the Bible, that you secluded for use, were merely ways for God to reinforce His hate toward sin. Those instances purely were for peoples understanding toward Him. They were not unintended contradictions of His own nature, they were intended with the ideal of teaching things. Those stories, could actually be used to reinforce His omniscience and prescience. For example, God knew what would happen so intentionally set up this change to show something of the nature of His hate for sin. Both of those instances, if you read the context, angered God because of the continual returning to sin of His people, the Israelites. So the changes were preconceived and meant for the facet of teaching.
I can see how this could be the case, even though it seems a bit convoluted. Therefore, the proof I provided earlier is incomplete and invalid.
Of course, the significance of this is diminished by the fact that probably any religion could evade contradiction by invoking the higher intelligence and mysterious designs of its deity. For example, a contradiction found which would disprove the existence of Zeus or Apollo could be made to disappear by calling upon the notion that it was "all part of the plan" to make an appearance of contradiction for some other purpose.
It's just as good proof if not better than the proof believers give that God does exist.
What proof of God's existence do believers give, Autumn18? What I don't understand is why the burden of proof is usually on the believer. What proof do non-believers have that God doesn't exist?
A true seeker does not need nor ask for "proof", and there is NO necessity for any burden of proof.
If proof is needed, faith is meaningless, and the one requesting it most likely would still choose to NOT believe, should such proof be revealed.
Jesus demonstrated His divinity with countless miracles, and spoke and taught like none before Him, nor since, and still, on the day of Pentecost, there were only 120 true followers. Where were the rest (of the thousands) that saw and heard?
Living their lives, with little or no regard for things spiritual (or religious), I suspect. Though, later, when the Apostles began to preach, thousands DID in fact come in.
Perhaps we shall see such days again, where many, like those on hubpages, who have heard and heard and heard, will finally "come in".
"Where were the rest that saw and heard?"
An excellent question aka-dj. One might also wonder how so many miraculous works of a man escaped the attention of any secular historians at the time.
In my own opinion, a "true" seeker absolutely MUST ask for proof. Otherwise, how is one to distinguish "truth" from "not truth?" For example, do you also feel that no evidence should be required for faith in Islam? Or Mormonism? If so, then how can a person know which is "truth?"
If Christianity were the only philosophy in the world, then there would be no need for proof or evidence (in fact, this is how I myself viewed it until I became aware of the other existing ideas and possibilities) since there could be no divergence of paths. But rationality is a tool which allows one to sift through the ambiguity of emotional and spiritual input to form an idea of what is likely "truth."
yolanda yvette, the burden of proof is generally upon the believer due simply to the outlandishness of the claims. For example, if I were to claim that there was a leprechaun living under my bed, then the burden of proof would most usually be considered to be upon me to provide some support for that claim (ie, a photograph, some evidence that only a leprechaun could have left behind, etc). Most people would never agree that the claim should be accepted just because nobody could prove that the leprechaun did NOT exist under my bed.
Likewise, if I wanted to sue a water bottling company for contamination in their water, they might counter that no such contamination was visible to their detection. If I said that this was because the contamination was invisible, did not interact with physical matter, and not only could not be proven, but SHOULD not be proven.. well, you can see how that argument would normally go.
The trick here is that context doesn't make any difference when dealing with what makes sense and what doesn't. God's existence or non-existence (either way) can't receive any special treatment from the rules of rationality.
That said, although the burden of proof is usually on believers, I have done what I could to make a brief proof for God's non-existence, within certain constraints. You see, all that we can do in our effort to understand what is and what isn't is to eliminate theories and ideas that fail us. Until an idea is shown to be certainly false, though, I don't believe it ought to be discarded out-of-hand. That's my position on the matter, anyhow.
That is one of the very basic understandings one has before they enter a public discussion forum, that the burden of proof is always on the one who makes a claim or statement about something, in this case, it is the claim that God exists.
So, if you really think God exists, you are the one who has to show us He exists.
Cagsil, with all due respect, I don't see how your comment relates to this thread.
Cagsil, there is not a problem with understanding life to some degree and living life to some fulfillment. The problem is what quality of life? As you know, many people commit suicide who understand life more than you and I.
This thread was meant originally for your rational proofs. What are they?
To me, well because too much doesn't make sense. The fact that the bible had been re written a million times and I don't believe moses posted the red sea.
It has been rewritten many times, but the accuracy of each translation is well documented, as are any inconsistencies. There is nothing mysterious about it. All the information is readily available, so you can have confidence that this objection does not hold any basis.
I think you mean, parted, but, yes, you are correct. Moses did not part the Red Sea. God did. Moses simply obeyed God when he was told to use his staff and touch the water. the rest was out of his hands.
These objections are too little to really keep you from believing. I suspect there is more to it than that.
Indeed you can.
Kyle Payne, please refer to my reply to your post "It is not a valid proof."
I believe that this is a rationally constructed proof by contradiction, which you were asking for. I would be interested to know your response.
Well, it can be proven that omnipotence is impossible for example--the paradox of omnipotence--but this is only valid within the scope of our logic.
If there is a larger reality out there where our logic does not apply, then it is possible something like a God exists.
Now, there is no reason to believe such a reality exists, and so, yes, in that way, omnipotence (and therefore God) can be disproven.
I don't think you should be able to use the logic you are using unless you have a rational basis for it secularist10.
Why do you think you can reliably use logic?
Here's the thing about logic. It's an abstraction from the way that the world works, as A Troubled Man most succinctly stated.
A basic example is a syllogism. All squares are rectangles; all rectangles are quadrilaterals. Logic is simply the set of rules and guidelines that allow us to conclude that all squares are quadrilaterals, even though we were never specifically told that. What is the rational basis for logic? Observation, I suppose, to some degree (though it's a very difficult question to answer). How do I know that if I take a square, knowing that it must be a rectangle, and look at the rectangle as a quadrilateral, that somewhere along the way its "squareness" won't disappear? Very technically speaking, I don't.
But in the same sense, how do I know that what I mean when I think "balloon" is really what I will mean when I say "balloon?" How do I know that somewhere in between my thought and my mouth, a balloon will not cease to be a balloon and become instead a monkey? It's a property, so far as we can observe, of how the world works. God could very easily fit into the same category as logic, in this way, as just a way in which the world works (and, in fact, many theistic scientists DO view God in this manner) but that is inconsistent with what most Christians are happy to define as "God."
It works because it works. I am asking for a basis, not how it works. I see you all know how to use logic, but can you give a rational basis.
I appreciate your honesty mathsciguy and secularist10, but I would suggest lightening up on Christianity and those who believe it through faith if you would admit you cannot answer why you can use logic other than because it works.
"...we do need blind faith axioms at the bottom here..."
I don't think I am removing the meaning you shared here by taking it from its context. If you think about it, you are chiding a belief system, Christianity, from your own belief system using tools such as induction, of which you cannot account for.
I would just suggest, before you can say Christianity is wrong with logic and such, try and create a framework from which you can give a rational basis for logic. (Saying it works because it works isn't 'rational' in the sense I am asking for.)
"you cannot answer why you can use logic other than because it works."
Logic is a tool. Why do I use a hammer when building a house? Well, quite simply, because it works. What more reason do I need? Do I need to worship the hammer, pray to it? Claim that the hammer created apple pie? I don't get it. You asked what is the basis of logic, and the basis is induction/ observation/ experience.
Here's what you are missing. I don't need Christianity to explain anything, but I do need logic to explain or understand everything. And "everything" includes Christianity itself. For instance, if I ask you why do you believe in Christianity, you will answer, "I believe it because of X, and I believe X because of Y, and Y because of Z." There, you have used logic. So logic is fundamental to everything.
"give a rational basis for logic"
Rational is a synonym for logical. I already said asking for a logical basis for logic is ridiculous. You are asking for a circular argument.
Instead of circularity, I advocate the minimum number of blind faith axioms needed to get the process of thought started. The primary blind faith axiom I need is that my senses are reliable.
By contrast, the Christian must make a number of blind faith axioms out of the blue, on top of the blind faith in his own senses/ observations.
Christianity, God and all religious supernatural ideas are just add-ons that are not necessary for the process of understanding to work coherently or effectively.
"Here's what you are missing. I don't need Christianity to explain anything, but I do need logic to explain or understand everything. And "everything" includes Christianity itself. For instance, if I ask you why do you believe in Christianity, you will answer, "I believe it because of X, and I believe X because of Y, and Y because of Z." There, you have used logic. So logic is fundamental to everything."
Well how did you come to that? Did you reason to this point? Are you using logic to prove logic?
As long as everyone here can see that you are willing to live by irrationality then I am satisfied.
Also, you do not need to know where logic comes from to use it. But when you are telling someone they are illogical, contradictory, etc, you need to be able to account for it when asked. Otherwise it is sound and fury signifying nothing.
"You asked what is the basis of logic, and the basis is induction/ observation/ experience."
You are begging the question. Wouldn't you use logic to make sense of experience? Unless you do not reason, which I know you do, you again show the irrationality of your own worldview.
This isn't some cheap trick to win an argument. This is precisely the hypocrisy that needs to be pointed in folks like yourself chiding Christianity for supposed irrationality.
"I advocate the minimum number of blind faith axioms needed to get the process of thought started"
I think I see what you are intending here. I agree. I think we need a worldview that is most consistent and can make the most sense out of all we experience. You mention Christianity has 'blind faith axioms', but you haven't mentioned any. I feel like I can give reasonable answers to any so-called contradiction you put forth from the scriptures. Whether you agree is another story.
"Well how did you come to that? Did you reason to this point? Are you using logic to prove logic?"
You are getting off topic. My statement was specifically referring to your particular beliefs, and the inherent contradictions thereof. You cannot criticize logic by using logic.
"You are begging the question. Wouldn't you use logic to make sense of experience?"
In the way you mean, yes. Hence the blind faith axiom. There is no circularity here. You keep saying I'm using logic to prove logic, or I should have a logical basis for logic, etc. Which is simply asking me to commit a fallacy.
It's very simple: I believe in my senses. How do I process my senses? By thinking (i.e. using logic). What is the basis for logic? There is no basis in that way (sorry I did not clarify that earlier), I am just automatically using it by thinking. You can't escape logic. It's impossible to get outside of it. It's like a fish in water. Just by thinking, you are admitting "I believe in logic." So it is implicit in thinking itself.
Now, this is all based on the broader more fundamental definition of logic or reason you are using. Initially, I was using a narrower one when I said deduction (reason) is based on induction (empiricism). But to get absolutely precise, yes, induction is itself a form of thinking/ logic.
"You mention Christianity has 'blind faith axioms', but you haven't mentioned any."
That's because the list is very long. And no, it is not about Biblical contradictions, lol. That is a whole other category of reasons to not believe in Christianity!
But as far as blind faith axioms, to be a Christian you must believe:
*that a supernatural realm exists (which is arbitrary; why just one supernatural realm? Why not 2, or 5, or 10,000 such realms, etc?);
*that natural reality was created (it could be eternal; there is no reason to believe it was created);
*that the supernatural reality was also created/ had a beginning;
*that it was created by a being that is all-powerful;
*that this being is conscious (it could be an unconscious force);
*that this being is also all-loving;
*that this being is also all-knowing;
*that this being has a plan for reality;
*that this being regularly intervenes in reality;
*that this being cares one whit about humanity;
*etc, etc, etc.
I haven't even gotten to anything relating to Jesus, Old Testament prophets, miracles, or many other things. You will note that none of these things follows logically from any of the other. I can believe in a supernatural realm without believing that natural reality was created; I can believe that God is all-powerful and all-loving without believing he is all-knowing; I can believe that Jesus was divine, and resurrected from the dead, without believing he was the "son of God" (he may have been a demigod, or an angel in human form). Etc, etc, etc.
And there are no contradictions or inconsistencies that result from any of that.
To ask for a logical basis for logic is obviously troublesome, lol.
But yeah, basically what A Troubled Man said. Deduction is based on induction. All knowledge ultimately is inductive. It all ultimately comes from experience in some way, shape or form.
Now let me just state right away that we do need blind faith axioms at the bottom here. But it is a far cry from the mountains of blind faith required of the God believer.
Why Doesn't God Exist?
The Creator God does exist; and it is very natural to believe in Him.
Just like I said before. There is a way to describe God changing His mind in a manner that explains the supposed contradiction.
There is even a biblical scripture that describes God not changing His mind like a man. “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?”
I think that we could say, from a created creature perspective, God describes things to us in a manner that we can comprehend. He is a communicative God and would of course consider us and our naivety when communicating.
Lastly, I think it would be hard to describe how an all powerful, all knowing, etc, etc, being should behave coming from a finite and ignorant position. (I hope all men, considering the huge amount of information and knowledge out there, would see themselves vastly ignorant.)
You should read my hub on God as a transcendent entity.
Very much so, Millercl.
I have to accept that as a refutation of my proof, albeit with the caveat that this illustrates one of the primary difficulties in proving OR disproving the existence of God. The very nebulous way in which God is often described ("God does not change his mind" vs. "God repented of the evil which he had purposed to do") makes it hard to disprove, but by the same token forbids any sort of definite statements about the nature of God!
One of the best examples around the theory of God's existence in my honest opinion is a short book by Scott Adams titled 'God's Debris'. The overall tone of the book along with the though process really puts your mind on a virtual roller coaster and suits both believers and non believers. Well worth the read if you are open minded and still sticks in the forefront of my daily thoughts. Overall, there is no proof either way. It's based on faith.
The Creator God has conversed with many truthful persons in almost all the regions of the world; it is a good proof of His existence.
or is it proof of some kind of thing which happens to human brain which convinces few people that god talked to them...it tells more about human race than god...
I am a fideist paarsurrey, so I agree that God exist. May I ask, to what were you referring in your post above.
I have heard the word "fideist" for the first time.
By the Creator God, I mean an attributive God; neither physical nor spiritual as all physical things and spirits are His creation; some of His attributes are given as follows:
[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
[112:3] ‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
[112:5] ‘And there is none like unto Him.’
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … php?ch=112
I think that helps;
Maybe I have not understood your question fully; then please elaborate it.
Yeah that helps, look at my hub on views concerning the existence of God, and it should help you understand fideism more along with other things.
Claiming you have an axiom you do not need to prove is a license for anyone to claim their belief system is a "blind faith axiom." You might as well say, "I cannot explain it, but I can tell you that you are wrong."
I know you can use logic well, but again and again I will say you have no basis for your belief in logic. That is the gist. If that is where you want to stand, then basically all you are saying is, "My blind faith axiom is better than your blind faith axioms."
Concerning your list of 'Christian blind faith axioms,' These essentialized teachings are not due to blind faith, but a belief in the bible. If you ask a Christian why they believe in any one of these, they would evidence it by pointing to the Bible.
So think, I feel like it would be fair, to say there are not numerous 'blind faith axioms' in the Christian faith, but essentially one: belief in the bible. (to use your terms)
(Please note that I do not feel hostile in writing any of this, and if you pick up a hostile tone, let it be disregarded considering this explanation. The tone of things can be misunderstood. Let this be protection from that.)
From what you have read of my articles, I would argue that Christianity is true due to the 'impossibility of the contrary.'
For instance, I can give a rational basis for logic and such. I would say it is impossible to do so without borrowing from the Christian religion. In a sense, I want you to substantiate the tools that you use to try and disprove Christianity. If you can't, then I would say you have no rational basis for your worldview, or you are doing the thing you say Christians shouldn't by having some trust or faith in some unknown. (Though I don't believe Christians have such a faith, since they do know who God is and what-not.)
"The absence of proof is not the proof of absence" - and if you don't like that comment, take it up with a mind superior to yours, that of Carl Sagan, the person I quoted.
Only a fool would make an absolute statement regarding something which he cannot and does not know the fact of.
Christopher Hitchens isn't and wasn't a scientist on the level of Carl Sagan. Basically, Hitchens was an Op Ed guy.
If you think scientifically then you don't find any practical evidence that supports existence of God. But logical thinking plays a vital role. I read this in a book of psychology. It is a part of human nature to behave properly if they have someone above them from whom they are scared or afraid. In order to keep this fear in humans, it is said that parents used to scare their child that if they do anything wrong or if they do evil things, someone will punish them. That is how this belief came into existence.
Because we should think as one, though whether we do or not is of no import. The idea is that we are putting too much faith in what we think we know and we are missing the beauty of what we do not know.
Explain to me, mischevioume, what you mean when you say "think as one". Also would not what we think we know be the same as what we do not know, at least partly?
It's all an illusion as long as "I" is involved. "I" is not this, this is now and "I" cannot change it. We are all the same, but "I" get's in the way and we cannot agree on anything. "I" keeps us from being one with all things and only confounds us more.
I am trying to understand you, and have been since I read your first post, but I cannot quite grasp it. It seems as if you are merely throwing words around and adding ego and illusion in as much as you can. Also please understand, I am not trying to be disrespectful, I truly would like to understand what it is you speak of.
Living in the now has opened my eyes to many things. One is that what I believe will not change the future and it certainly won't help me forget the past. Now is all that matters, for it is all we truly know.
How did your conclusion, "now is all that matters", follow from "for it is all we truly know"? Why is "now" the only thing that matters? Do you not think the past is useful, also along with the future?
The future is a blank slate and the past is gone. I can learn from the past, but the future holds no truth.
If you can learn from the past, would not you say that the past is useful?
The past can become a hinderance, in the sense that we can get lost trying to grasp it. Yes I have memories, good and bad, but they can also cause to get lost in the myre of my self.
The we shouldn't think as one. (if it isn't important.)
"Now is all that matters, for it is all we truly know."
Well that is what you think. You can't know it. You said so yourself.
Break time is over. God is perfect, the universe is perfect. Mathematics proves that perfection. Now, if God had said that the universe was imperfect, and upon inspection I found this to be in error, then I would wonder. Evolution doesn't bother me, because if evolution did not occur, even and especially in the case of God, then "he" would have remained in the state of Pre-creation. God didn't stay in darkness, and neither should we. I can't PROVE God doesn't exist. Einstein couldn't PROVE God doesn't exist. Stephen Hawking can't PROVE God doesn't exist...and if they can't, what makes you think you can? Why, you must be the smartest thing in this time/space. I bow to your magnificence. THOU ART TRULY GOD!
Kyle, just ignore it. This fellow just throws out assertion after assertion. It may sound mean, but it is kind of a waste of time. He doesn't even engage what you are asking.
That's because you are only reading the words.
You can be distracted all you want, but eventually, you will see that the illusion only makes it that much harder to deal with. That is how I came to see what is and what is not. Of course it may only be a truth for me, one may never know, not even me.
Well what else am I supposed to read, it is only words.
You still did not answer my question. Is the past useful?
That just isn't true. I'm very engaging! Sometimes I take a counter stance to make things roll a little better. I really don't care who I bug...just as long as I can!
Druid Dude, he was speaking of mischievousme, not you.
You can do what you like, it will not ease your suffering. It is good to argue though, it is how we find answers within ourselve's.
It can be, but it doess not affect the reality of things. Let's say I bought a new car and I was happy. A short time later I crash the car. I was under the illusion that the car made me happy, but I did not see the future, which did not exist. So the illusion lead to suffering.
If the past is useful than it matters, so you are wrong. In you example the past did affect the reality of things. The fact that you bought the car (past) affected that in the present you could crash the car (present). So the past did affect the reality of things in the future.
Because that is the nature of the beast. The beast is the illusion that now does not matter. We worry too much about the future and live too much in the past. If I live now, I am neither an optimist or a pecimist, I just am and I have accepted suffering as it comes to me.
It is as it is. If I do not accept that I will make mistakes, then I will make mistakes constantly. If I do not admit that I have no control of anything, I will never have control of my self.
That is where we have control (or not). Internally in self. Externally, there are too many variables which effect your "control". I think that it is this chaining of the darker self which leads us to the next step. The way our culture has always gone about this, simply doesn't work. Most people I know that are on the track, got there from within themselves.
Words can hurt. Words can feel good! Words can inspire!:0 Words can tear down, or buid up. They have no physical form, yet have presence and power. Without the word...mankind is just an animal. That Moses dude sure was smart. He invented a concept which has no matterial form, and with words and words alone enthralled the planet for several thousand years. People say his words were all made up long before the "novel" was invented. He gave the hebrews there own written language. That's a fact. No Hebrew writings exist prior to MOSES. Pretty good for a shepherd.
Sure you won't hit me? Do you know of any hebrew writings older than the ones attributed to Moses? There aren't any. In Pharoahs house, Moses learned to read and write. This was a factor in the liberation from bondage. Same here in this country. Educate the slave, and they are no longer slaves. The whole thing is about truth.
by A James Di Rodi 6 years ago
Why doesn't God give the fallen angels a chance to repent?
by Apostle Jack 8 years ago
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle black.Do you agree.There is more proof that He does exist than He doesn't.They don't...
by accofranco 11 years ago
If your answer is yes,what is your proof.And then which religion is the true religion and which one is false and why do you think so?
by zzron 8 years ago
Atheists claim that God does not exist, show me the proof that backs up this claim.
by Jake Brannen 4 years ago
How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?What validity is there to the double negative argument for the existence of God? Is it really rational to justify belief in something by the mere fact that it cannot be disproved? You also can not disprove the existence of...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 2 months ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|