Philosophy Discussion Forums

cynicallyinsane wrote:If there is a god, why doesn't he prove that he exists? Why does he leave us without any compelling evidence of his existence?

God Does Reveal him self your assumption is backed up by your Bias that there is no God I'm assuming your a Atheist.


I'm a Ex.Atheist and God has revealed him self to me and he has Revealed him self to you in a couple ways.


One is Natural Revelation God has revealed him self by Creation and Ill explain.


By Logic one can come to the Conclusion that if there is a Painting there is a Painter and if there are rules there is a Rule giver, and so forth


So follow my logic


If there is no Creator there is no Creation if there is no Creation then you don't exist, but because you do exist there is a Creator.


a little joke I came up with on my own


But serious If there is no God a.k.a The first cause, the unmoved mover, etc. then why is there a universe and world?


Big bangs don't happen on there own they need a Cause

and Science shows that Time,space, and matter had a Cause

Which is a Creator and because Time had a Beginning this Creator would not be held by the limits and restraints of Time so he would not need a Cause for his is the un-caused cause. Also intelligence can not come from non- intelligence and as we can see there world has rules and laws that govern it (the cycles of nature, the measurements between the planet and the sun, the size of atoms, basically everything is complex )



so this is the second way God has revealed him self.



and also in my opinion God does not want robots or people who don't really love him

and Ill use a Story to illustrate this


Imagine there is Supermodel and everyone loves her and she can never met the right guy cause every guy she meets only loves her for your beauty and money so then someday she stumbles in to a Blind Guy anyways they go out for coffee and he and her soon fall in love and get married This girl found a guy who loves her for who she is not for what she is worth and can do.


and the same is With God he wants people to love him for who is really is and this comes by Faith but these is Substance for the faith God does not want blind faith.


as you can tell I'm a Christian .but I fell i ve wrote enough for my first post.. thanks for reading

-Rudy

By Logic one can come to the Conclusion that if there is a Painting there is a Painter and if there are rules there is a Rule giver, and so forth


So follow my logic


If there is no Creator there is no Creation if there is no Creation then you don't exist, but because you do exist there is a creator


But serious If there is no God a.k.a The first cause, the unmoved mover, etc. then why is there a universe and world?


Big bangs don't happen on there own they need a Cause

and Science shows that Time,space, and matter had a Cause

Which is a Creator and because Time had a Beginning this Creator would not be held by the limits and restraints of Time so he would not need a Cause for his is the un-caused cause. Also intelligence can not come from non- intelligence and as we can see there world has rules and laws that govern it (the cycles of nature, the measurements between the planet and the sun, the size of atoms, basically everything is complex )



so this is the second way God has revealed him self.



and also in my opinion God does not want robots or people who don't really love him

and Ill use a Story to illustrate this


Imagine there is Supermodel and everyone loves her and she can never met the right guy cause every guy she meets only loves her for your beauty and money so then someday she stumbles in to a Blind Guy anyways they go out for coffee and he and her soon fall in love and get married This girl found a guy who loves her for who she is not for what she is worth and can do.


and the same is With God he wants people to love him for who is really is and this comes by Faith but these is Substance for the faith God does not want blind faith.


as you can tell I'm a Christian .but I fell i ve wrote enough for my first post.. thanks for reading

-Rudy

[/quote]

your logic is great and on point hope to hear more from you

Who said God hasn't proved his existence. Every drop of rain that falls, every breeze that blows across a wide plain, the blessing of a beautiful voice or moving piece of artwork these are all expressions of God. A child with no hope of living that some how makes it through and does live, the big bang all of these are amazing miracles. Can you create rain? or a planet? or a universe or a black hole, or beauty or love or talent or color or the amazing complexity of the brain and spirit?

To Anarchyisbliss:

What a beautiful, moving testament to God's existence.

I know that it must have touched the Heart of God because it so touched mine. Thank you.

Another way that God's existence is affirmed for me is through the inner beauty of His creations.


"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."
St. Thomas Aquinas

Q: Why is there no evidence for the existence of God?

Occam's Razor: the simplest adequate exlanation is the best.

A: God doesn't exist.

You have all stated God has shown Itself through the beauty and awe we see in the world.


Have any of you not heard the famous quote "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?"


Beauty is a subjectiev thing programmed in the human brain. Why we feel a respect and certain awe to a particular thing, be it a beautiful landscape or a the rushing water from a river, is up for debate. The human mind is a complex thing.


Another thing is that we cannot prove the supernatural on natural terms, unless WE where somehow connected to the supernatural. Again, that is up for question.


In the end, it requires a leap of faith to really make the decision. Therefore, you cannot prove nor disprove God such as you cannot prove nor disprove Lord Xenu or The magical Cow of Sector 3. It all requires a leap of faith.

don't take the magical cow of sector three's name in vain, blasphemer, or you will be cast in the slurry pit and dwell forever up to your neck in ****.

To The Prime:

I affirm that God has proven Himself.

Yes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". And I, for one, affirm that the BEHOLDER is God who looks upon us. At other times, we are the BEHOLDER who looks upon God. I also affirm that it is ultimately (through evolution) God who has created the human mind which is connected to His Mind. As such, to me at least it follows that we can prove the Supernatural, as it is the Supernatural Being who has created us. We are the most beautiful "piece" of God that He has created. I also affirm that it can at times be so much more than "taking that leap of faith". Who is it taking that leap.

Some years back, for a few years, I had a deep existential problem with the existence of God -- I was an agnostic bordering on being an atheist.

The question of the day for me, everyday, was "How can I not believe that God exists with everything I can see". I saw all of the beauty of the Earth that at one time affirmed God's existence for me -- but all I felt was Kierkegaard's fear and trembling and dread. The skeptic in me rose up and took over and it became a long arduous journey.

I have come to believe that it wasn't really the question "Does God exist" for me. The REAL underlying question I believe was "Do I want God to exist? At that time, though I didn't realize it, the answer was an emphatic NO.

There is a saying "When you find yourself in a battle with life, lose. There are no triumphs over truth".

One day, in Vermont, I was working on a woodpile, and the next climing a mountain. When I had come down from the mountain, something spoke to me -- I HEARD NO WORDS, HAD NO VISIONS, NO PERSON WAS AROUND ME -- but still, all I can say is -- something spoke to me.

In that instant, God's existence was affirmed for me.

Of course, this may not answer the question -- WHY DOESN'T GOD PROVE HIMSELF -- to everyone. But I do believe if one cannot have that question answered, it is because one chooses not to believe.

OK...

first of all, I think I didn't emphasize enough about my statement about beauty. What you define as beauty can be ugly to someone else, therefore God's so called "most beautiful creation" could be(in my eyes) God's biggest mistake. Look what we've done! The bad's outweigh the goods in our case!


I also need to ask you what do you define as beautiful, as I am a bit confused as what you call beautiful.


Now, what the hell does this mean? "When you find yourself in a battle with life, lose. There are no triumphs over truth". Are you saying to self-delude yourself as the truth is no good? If God is your "ultimate truth" then why do you seek the ultimate truth? I have no idea...


I also cannot emphasize(I dont think I posted this)that truth is subjective. People perceive reality differently from each other. I can guarentee you, willowtreeme, that people before Christ's time had no concept of one God in 3 people. They where mainly polytheistic. Look where that got them.


I don't understand why we only have those two choices. Do as I say or suffer. Kind of childish, isn't it?

willowtreeme,

Does it not appeal to your reason to suppose that God was a concept primitive man employed to explain his existence in the world - in lieu of knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology and all related disciplines, that now, taken as a whole, constitute a highly coherent evidence based view of the world, that refutes the primitive explanation in a number of ways?

Do you not know more than you did ten years ago - and does not man know more than he did ten thousand years ago?

You say there are no triumphs over truth, then why bend reason to believe, upon the most vague and insubstantial basis, something that you cannot know?

mark black:

MY reason supports the existence of God.

I don't know who said it but someone did say that because we have conceived of a God -- there is a God. Is it a possiblity that we can conceive of something that is not a possibility?

What supports my reason is that primitive man evolved as primitive man was to evolve.

Does it not appeal to your reason to suppose that since we now have such "knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology and all related disciplines", and humanity still holds to the truth or possibility or belief, dah, dah -- that there is a God, that your reasoning may, and I say, may, be flawed?

Yes, man does know more than he did ten thousand years ago and you, mark black, have just disputed your own argument.

When I was speaking of "no triumphs over truth, I was speaking about struggling with that giant leap of faith, as it were. For some of us, it would simply be a case of "letting go" and taking that leap.

You are coming from a place where there is no God, am I right. I am coming from a place where there is. I bend no reason upon the most vague and insubstantial basis, I simply let truth triumph.

Peace

To The Prime:

I do agree that we all have a different view of what beauty is. And I suppose that, even though I feel that there are some universally accepted things that are beautiful -- such as the fallen snow in the darkness reflected in the light, or the indigo sky with all those stars -- or a storm with all of the thunder and beautiful lightning and that rain, or the giant oak or willow tree, or sunrise or sunset that makes you want to cry, and maybe Keanu Reeves, there are people who would not be affected by this and think it is beautiful.

I have met men who at one time I thought were beautiful -- their faces - and after having discovered who they really are -- they weren't handsome to me anymore -- really -- their faces. So beauty is perception, I guess.

I have also felt that humanity was a mistake and cried some bitter tears over us and at times I have also felt proud of humanity.

"When you find yourself in a battle with life, lose. There are no triumphs over truth".

I don't know how you could have possibly come up with this conclusion -- that I was saying that one should delude oneself and that truth is no good.

Yes, to me God is the ultimate truth -- ergo -- when you find yourself in a battle with truth, lose. Who would want to triumph over God. To me LIFE and GOD are synonymous. (did I spell that right)

Hee hee, you sort of have it backwards. There is NOT ONE GOD IN THREE PEOPLE, there are THREE PEOPLE IN ONE GOD. And evolution does take time, and yes, I do believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Religion and politics, what a mess we can make of it.

What two choices are you talking about.

Peace

Meh, that quote just shouts somthng else at me..so my bad

As for the two choices: DO as I say or suffer for teh rest of eternity..of course I am talking about God.


One God in three people, three people in one God, whatever. True, what you said makes more sense, but it still seems the same to me


Who would want to triumph over God? You'd be surprised, my friend. Of course, what do you mean by triumph over God? In what sense?

1)God is not compassionate
2)God simply created the universe, then abandoned it (Deist God)
3)God does not exist


Earlier it was mentioned that a good God could not let the people who claim to be following Him do horrible things such as murder other people. The first thing we need to do is separate God from people, and remember that it was people who did these things not God. Next, I'm assuming that we can all agree that there are good things that exist in the world and there are things such as love and compassion. If God is the one who is uncompassionate and cruel, then we must assume that this compassion comes from people, who as has been mentioned are responsible for terrible things such as rape, torture, and murder.

Furthermore, God promises punishment to those who do those things. The God described in the Bible detests those those things. In fact, according to the christian faith, he detested them so much that He sent His only begotten Son who had never sinned to become sin itself, and through Jesus, sin was nailed to the cross. God showed us that the punishment for our sin was the torture of the cross, and that He was compassionate enought to pay the price for us.

I would like to add an idea from the book The Shack by William P. Young, as well. Young's character Papa, representing God the Father, tells the main character that sin is it's own punishment. It is sin that destroys lives and hurts those around us. He decribes Jesus as the cure for the disease of sin. I brought up this idea because it goes back to what I originally began saying. It is people's sin that causes the pain and suffering of others, regardless of who's name they do it in. I believe the fact that God saves those who turn away from that and changes them into compassionate, loving people and punishes those who continue to sin no matter what the cost to themselves, others, and even God Himself is evidence that God is compassionate. Furthermore, I've been treated poorly enough to know that compassion did not originate from people. I also believe that the fact that there are still good things today and that God sent Jesus, He did not in fact create the world and abandon it. In fact, I believe that Hell is simply this world without any of the things that we consider good: beauty, grace, love, strength, and life itself, because I believe that all of these things originate from God and Hell is chosen separation from God. I believe there is plenty of evidence that He exists, but I also believe that He reveals more of Himself to those who want to have a relationship with Him and He will not force Himself into the lives of people who do not want to have a relationship with Him.

If God is so compassionate why did this deity create evil and sin. One can not ignore the problem from evil which states:

P1)If God is omniscient then he knows there is evil.

P2)If God is omnipotent then he could stop evil.

P3)If God is omnibenevolent then he would stop evil.

C)Either God is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent or God does not exist.

A God who created evil does not sound like a compassionate God to me.