Does God Exist?

Eric if you actually spent the time to read my post you might find that I was opposing Alan's reasoning. You might have confused kindness with agreement. I may not agree with Alan but he is friend and I think he deserves respect.

You may believe your views are logical and are beyond questioning but faith in science can equally be as dangerous when you interpret the conclusions from an atheist perspective. Take god creating everything from nothing. Is that not what science proposed with the BB? Is it not beyond reason to suspect something must have actually instigated this first event?
Can you not imagine intelligence beyond ours ? are we the ultimate intelligence in the universe? Should time and matter beyond manipulation? I am glad you believe that life is determined by the laws of nature. Eric I do not believe in god but I am not so arogant as to assume I am infallible with my views or opinions. I can argue from both perspectives with equal tenacity but I hope I respect my opponents long held beliefs. thanks xris.

Xris wrote,

“Eric if you actually spent the time to read my post you might find that I was opposing Alan's reasoning. You might have confused kindness with agreement. I may not agree with Alan but he is friend and I think he deserves respect.”


K…ummm… I did read it and you used my name in the first paragraph and addressed my points! Also, I acknowledged that your second paragraph was written to Alan-but I was addressing a point relevant to the first paragraph BECAUSE of what you stated to Alan in the second! That should have been clear.


Xris wrote,

“You may believe your views are logical and are beyond questioning but faith in science can equally be as dangerous when you interpret the conclusions from an atheist perspective. Take god creating everything from nothing. Is that not what science proposed with the BB? Is it not beyond reason to suspect something must have actually instigated this first event?”


I never stated that my views were beyond question! Never! In fact, that wouldn’t fit my own skepticism about the ultimate use of science as a metaphysically and epistemologically adequate basis for philosophy. So, you’re making a straw-man argument here. I have no idea what you meant by ‘how you interpret conclusions etc etc.’ You must mean -make conclusions based on science? Well, what’s wrong with that in as long as one holds such conclusions tentatively, makes little if any philosophical assertions based thereupon, and readily acknowledges the inevitable limitations on inferential-inductive reasoning? I’m making no claim as an ‘atheist’ about the nature of the universe based on science. If a dogmatist makes assertions FOR belief in god because he, in part, makes wrongful assessments of the science at issue, that is, he misunderstands it or misrepresents it—what’s wrong with calling him on it-exactly?

There are, in fact, different scientific views on the BB and what caused it! But, if you had read my post to Alan then you would have seen that I stated that the out of nothing aspect of his belief fairs no better as an explanation even if science also stated as much! In other words, both would be explanatorily equal! God is identified as such a creator-but positing god tells us nothing of ‘how’ he/it did create --AND that is the theistic point made above! Read carefully please-I’ve addressed these issues already!

Xris wrote,

“Can you not imagine intelligence beyond ours ? are we the ultimate intelligence in the universe? Should time and matter beyond manipulation? I am glad you believe that life is determined by the laws of nature. Eric I do not believe in god but I am not so arogant as to assume I am infallible with my views or opinions. I can argue from both perspectives with equal tenacity but I hope I respect my opponents long held beliefs. thanks xris.”


Wow!! I not only state that I do not know everything but that all human knowledge is limited to making any such categorical claims. Again, you’re assuming a position I do not hold! Since you obviously didn’t read my post to Alan, allow me to explain my point here: my point about the physical laws was to correct Alan’s view that science teaches that the universe is random! Science clearly doesn’t teach this about nature! I was making NO ultimate claims about the accuracy or knowability of the physicalist strong claims that the universe operates from and on material laws! My own view on the matter in strict respect to Alan’s theism is that the scientific picture of the universe may well act as a decent and functionally useful CONVENTION of how we—from our strict human point of view—understand the universe. Obviously, if one wanted to make ontological claims based on these assessments alone you would have no greater skeptic than myself—ask Groktruth about that! You apparently must have overlooked the self-designation of myself being a Humean skeptic! As far as being buddhistic in philosophy-my view of all human conceptions is that they fail to grasp the genuine nature of reality. In other words, there is pure sensate experience and awareness. It is when we begin to conceptualize that we LOSE the vast rich domain of that awareness and experiences. You simply have totally misunderstood me.

Eric D.

Hi Eric,

Heck you took time to try to change me into (what appears) to me to be a very Angry atheist hater of God like you but gladly very unsuccessfully. You make assumptions that I am highly religious and belong to some weirdo fundamental sect, of which I am not? But I take my hat off to you you are a very competent Philosopher and I am sure you could easily put up a sound argument for the existence of God (Supreme being) If you wanted to. I find comfort believing in a God and a continuation of life beyond this mortal plane. My dear younger sister is dying of cancer and the only thing keeping going is her firm faith in a loving God.

God gave us a free will and let us each develop our own characters, thus some become Hitler and some Mother Teressa, Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi There is evil both in nature and in man because God allows for existence to be a duality of things, thus there is black and white, dark and light, good and evil, positive and negative, war and peace and so on and so on.

By the way what I experiences with my recent near death event was not my brain playing tricks on me due to oxygen deprivation or any other neurological reason but a profound,deep meaningful, protracted and beautiful experience in some other dimension of existence, indeed I believe one can be an atheist and still hope for a life after earthly death

I said science has stated over and over again that before the big bang there was nothing, thus from nothingness everything came according to most scientists and cosmologist but thankfully not all.

Do you believe that matter energy and space are eternal, infinite that simply had no prime mover or cause? Yes? or No?

By the way I am not the silly ignoramus you paint me as, but well educated in the sciences, especially in cosmology and comparative religious thought


I put in briefly Thomas Aquinas five proof of Gods existence for those who have not read them before

St. Thomas Aquinas was the greatest medieval philosopher. He tried to show the harmony between faith and reason, and between Christianity and philosophy. Aquinas's views have been very influential, especially in Catholic thought.

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 5

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "necessary being" (a being that has to exist) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - God by definition has all positive attributes. But existence is a positive attribute. So God exists by definition -- and of necessity.
{ 2 } - Only a being that exists of necessity could be a suitable object of worship.
{ 3 } - Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being.

Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "first cause" (something that causes other things to exist but that isn't itself caused to exist by anything else) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - There is a second cause, and so there must be a first cause.
{ 2 } - "X causes Y" only means that things like X are followed in our experience by things like Y.
{ 3 } - Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause.
{ 4 } - Causality is only a category that the mind uses to put together the raw data of sensation.

A near death experience of Pam Reynolds below
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =104397005


Reynolds' journey began one hot August day in 1991.

"I was in Virginia Beach, Va., with my husband," she recalls. "We were promoting a new record. And I inexplicably forgot how to talk. I've got a big mouth. I never forget how to talk."

An MRI revealed an aneurysm on her brain stem. It was already leaking, a ticking time bomb. Her doctor in Atlanta said her best hope was a young brain surgeon at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Arizona named Robert Spetzler.

"The aneurysm was very large, which meant the risk of rupture was also very large," Spetzler says. "And it was in a location where the only way to really give her the very best odds of fixing it required what we call 'cardiac standstill.' "

It was a daring operation: Chilling her body, draining the blood out of her head like oil from a car engine, snipping the aneurysm and then bringing her back from the edge of death.

"She is as deeply comatose as you can be and still be alive," Spetzler observes.

When the operation began, the surgeons taped shut Reynolds' eyes and put molded speakers in her ears. The ear speakers, which made clicking sounds as loud as a jet plane taking off, allowed the surgeons to measure her brain stem activity and let them know when they could drain her blood.
"I was lying there on the gurney minding my own business, seriously unconscious, when I started to hear a noise," Reynolds recalls. "It was a natural D, and as the sound continued — I don't know how to explain this, other than to go ahead and say it — I popped up out the top of my head."

Dying In A Brain Scanner, Sort Of

A Tunnel And Bright Light

She says she found herself looking down at the operating table. She says she could see 20 people around the table and hear what sounded like a dentist's drill. She looked at the instrument in the surgeon's hand.
"It was an odd-looking thing," she says. "It looked like the handle on my electric toothbrush."

Reynolds observed the Midas Rex bone saw the surgeons used to cut open her head, the drill bits, and the case, which looked like the one where her father kept his socket wrenches. Then she noticed a surgeon at her left groin.

"I heard a female voice say, 'Her arteries are too small.' And Dr. Spetzler — I think it was him — said, 'Use the other side,' " Reynolds says.

Soon after, the surgeons began to lower her body temperature to 60 degrees. It was about that time that Reynolds believes she noticed a tunnel and bright light. She eventually flat-lined completely, and the surgeons drained the blood out of her head.

During her near-death experience, she says she chatted with her dead grandmother and uncle, who escorted her back to the operating room. She says as they looked down on her body, she could hear the Eagles' song "Hotel California" playing in the operating room as the doctors restarted her heart. She says her body looked like a train wreck, and she said she didn't want to return.

"My uncle pushed me," she says, laughing. "And when I hit the body, the line in the song was, 'You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.' And I opened my eyes and I said, 'You know, that is really insensitive!' "

Alan wrote,

“Heck you took time to try to change me into (what appears) to me to be a very Angry atheist hater of God like you but gladly very unsuccessfully. You make assumptions that I am highly religious and belong to some weirdo fundamental sect, of which I am not? But I take my hat off to you you are a very competent Philosopher and I am sure you could easily put up a sound argument for the existence of God (Supreme being) If you wanted to. I find comfort believing in a God and a continuation of life beyond this mortal plane. My dear younger sister is dying of cancer and the only thing keeping going is her firm faith in a loving God.”


LOL! Not at all! I happily typed away while eating some good food and talking to a couple of friends. Plus, I can’t be a god hater if I have no belief in such a thing! You may choose to think that’s my hidden motive. But, again, that’s your viewpoint and nothing more.


I wasn’t trying to get you to be anything. Look-you started this post and put forward arguments-and I simply went through and critically evaluated them. I’m sorry if you got upset by this process-it wasn’t my intention. If anyone is trying to convince anyone here-let’s not kid each other-you’re the one placing the arguments and considerations in open view. Don’t get angry because we reject your arguments for being bad. They’re just bad! I’m sure you’re a nice enough person.


I appreciate your stated convictions. Again, I’m sorry to hear of your personal problems and I would be the last person to suggest that one debate religious convictions with a dying person or really anyone for that matter! But if you put arguments out there—especially on a philosophy forum, you must expect them to be thoroughly reviewed. This is a philosophical exercise and nothing more. Please don’t be upset with me because the process is itself a brutal business. Believe me-I have many of my own torn to shreds by my teachers lol—and their comments make mine look rather kindly by contrast. Again, I’m sorry to hear of your personal struggles! My heart and thoughts are with you and your family! Sincerely!


Alan wrote,

“God gave us a free will and let us each develop our own characters, thus some become Hitler and some Mother Teressa, Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi There is evil both in nature and in man because God allows for existence to be a duality of things, thus there is black and white, dark and light, good and evil, positive and negative, war and peace and so on and so on.”


Well, first off-whether god gave us free will is an enormously thorny theological bit of business. No one has settled that issue! Secondly, and again, you’re abandoning your original argument. To argue that there is goodness readily seeable all around us and in abundance bespeaking of a loving and kind Creator cannot be sustained by the additional argument that there’s plenty of evil in the world due to whatever. You argument is obviously not sustainable. Hence, you must LEAVE the observable world wherein you initially argued for god’s apparent omnipresent goodness, for a theologically interpretive explanation that is contingent on other factors wholly irrelevant and far more complicated than what’s found in your initial argument. In the above post- I anticipated that this would be your move and answered why it would be an even worse move for you. Yet, you did it anyway! If you have to appeal to a highly refined and interpretive theological position to explicate away the problems in your initial evidentialist argument, then your evidentialist argument is weak at best.


The problem here is that in order for me to now consider your explanation of evil on theological grounds I have to accept your (1) theological sources, which I do not prima facie, and (2) your interpretation of those sources (which happen to also be extra-biblical as well). Naturally, this begs the question: When you appeal to religious authority to answer problems in your initial argument-you’re failing to see that it IS THOSE VERY SOURCES THAT ARE IN QUESTION! To tell us what the volitional nature of man is and what god does is not support for your argument, it’s abandoning your initial argument altogether! Before we can consider the religious sources, we want some fine reasons to consider them at all. You cannot just shove them in whenever your more evidentialist arguments face threatening criticism.


To argue that the world possesses such wondrous beauty suggesting god’s presence or revealing his workmanship-is easily refuted. If your argument doesn’t work, then you cannot jump onto a theological tradition and expect that the argument is now resolved. All you’ve done is push the question back onto how you can be sure that god allows free will-dualities to exist- or how you even know such a god exists at all! Your retreat to theology doesn’t save anything. It only complicates beyond hope of salvaging your original argument. I write “any hope” because once you go down the hermeneutic and theological path-you’re in unresolvable terrain with little chance of asserting much beyond mere personal opinion and your own theological preferences. Every viewpoint you mentioned above has viable counter textual and theological answers. Calvinists do not think we have free will and those that think god established duality in the world would face arguments against fellow believers that such a thing theologically makes god complicit in originating sin etc. etc. Round and round the theological mulberry bush we go! By the time we’re done with all of this exegesis and so on-your original argument has long been lost.


Alan wrote,

“By the way what I experiences with my recent near death event was not my brain playing tricks on me due to oxygen deprivation or any other neurological reason but a profound,deep meaningful, protracted and beautiful experience in some other dimension of existence, indeed I believe one can be an atheist and still hope for a life after earthly death”


Well, I understand your point. However, there is literature on the subject matter that can be reviewed that says otherwise. Moreover, your interpretation of your experience is easily countered by those who’ve had the exact same experience AND have opposite-culturally based interpretations. I doubt you would think their interpretations, which deny the existence of god-are legitimate. As such, why wouldn’t I be just as rightly skeptical of your interpretation? You’re free to believe whatever you want Alan-obviously! But don’t expect me to buy it just because you happen to think one way on the matter. I have excellent reasons to doubt your interpretation of your own experience—that’s all! You, me and we all do this. For those having certain brain traumas or mental illnesses-they truly do think that they are having the experiences that they’re reporting. Everyday normal people interpret their experiences in the exact wrong way. Why couldn’t one undergoing a severe heart attack, which has a direct effect on one’s brain, not be expected to have strange or bizarre reports afterwards? These considerations are reasonable foundations for doubt well within the context of this conversation. You may have had something truly happen! Then again, you may not have. Both are possible from my point of view!


Alan wrote,

“I said science has stated over and over again that before the big bang there was nothing, thus from nothingness everything came according to most scientists and cosmologist but thankfully not all. Do you believe that matter energy and space are eternal, infinite that simply had no prime mover or cause? Yes? or No?”


LOL! It’s not a yes or no kinda thing Alan! There are numerous hypotheses out there on how such an event could have happened. Some do think that it seems to have happened out of nothing. Note, however, the word here is “seems.” Science cannot state anything with absolute authority due to its inductive restrictions. Stating things with absolute certainty is the usual praxis of religion not science!


As to the specific questions, I cannot say! I admit I do not know! However, I do not begin to posit highly dubious entities as god and angels etc. to fill the gap of my current ignorance on the matter. I simply admit what must be admitted! It is possible that we are dealing with multi-verses or some infinite process-- or some being of the magical sort. I don’t think we know or are likely to ever know. In the end, and on a personal philosophical note, I don’t think it ultimately matters. This, however, is a subject for another day-perhaps.


Alan wrote,

“By the way I am not the silly ignoramus you paint me as, but well educated in the sciences, especially in cosmology and comparative religious thought”


Alan-I don’t know what you are. All I can do is re-act to your statements! You obviously misrepresented these scientific positions. I too am well read on these matters and have degrees in religious studies and philosophy. Now that we’re through with our respective resumes all I can say is that if you articulated the sciences in a way that reflected misunderstandings and obvious falsehoods-you did--you just did! This issue is not about your or my education-or our respective intelligences. It is ‘how’ you outlined the issue in an obvious biased-mistaken fashion. Nothing more!


Alan wrote,

“St. Thomas Aquinas was the greatest medieval philosopher. He tried to show the harmony between faith and reason, and between Christianity and philosophy. Aquinas's views have been very influential, especially in Catholic thought.”

He was! However, and as I pointed out in post #23, his philosophy was based on a certain metaphysics that is at best fickle. As I’ll show once again:

“1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.”


Obviously in Aristotelian thought and cosmology this makes sense, which is what Aquinas made use of. Yet, to get to the prime mover this argument assumes to know how ALL causality works!! This understanding is nowhere established in the argument, it is only assumed! Its basis is on the nature of entities and assumes the universe to be in the same shape as all other entities that compose it. However, this is precisely the problem: if we step outside Aristotelian metaphysics for even a moment, then we see that there’s no reason whatsoever to assume that the universe must be finite. Also, outside this metaphysical picture of the universe-there’s no logical reason to think there couldn’t be an infinite series of movers. Why is the universe or multi-verse or cosmic process being infinite somehow less reasonable than an infinite non-dependent prime conscious mover? No convincing answers can be had here. It can ONLY work once we accept the ontological picture that Aquinas has painted for us! Obviously, we need not walk into his gallery-let alone buy his paintings!


“2- FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.”

Again, this assumes how causality works. For example, we have multiple things that cause any one thing and have numerous lasting effects elsewhere. We can have effects and cause co-exist in synchronization—we can have looping effects and causes wherein things are caused and compel further effects and causes bending around in some infinite cyclical wave that endures forever. This view falsely sees causation as working only in a strict linear fashion. Yet, we have NO reason to think that this is how things go at all. There are innumerable possible ways in which this all comes together.

Again, even if we buy this philosophical narrative it doesn’t follow that there cannot be an infinite causal series. Let’s keep in mind that Aquinas is making an empirical argument here! Ultimately, this is based on how we perceive things. But as quantum mechanics seems to show and simple reasoning may illustrate that this could be wrong. Moreover, it hasn’t considered the possibility that we haven’t nor can we really observe or track the infinite. Therefore, at the end of the day, we must accept this argument largely on faith!

“- NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 5”

Obviously, this assumes that everything is contingent AT the same time and IN the same manner! All this argument shows is that if some things were contingent some things would have not existed at some point. That’s it! Again, there’s nothing contradictory about having continual contingent existences. The ONLY way this would work is if you said that everything had to be contingent at the exact same time and in the same way! But if you do this, then you’re well beyond the scope of what this argument can empirically show! You can logically have a universe or multi-verse situation about which you have a continual flow of contingent ontological generations ad infinitum.


“4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.”

Again, this is based on Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s view that the universe is arranged from top to bottom in manner of ontological importance. Naturally, this is easy to get around! Toss Aristotle’s fickle view out, and you have no way to categorize “things” in a top to bottom fashion. For example, my parents gave me life but this fact seems odd if we were to say additionally that they were somehow greater than me merely because of this biological fact! Just like whatever created the universe-may have been powerful (probably less now than then) in order to bring about the BB doesn’t in any way imply that such a thing or process is greater—and greater continuously! The argument merely assumes this hierarchy of being based on very crude and outdated views of how things are arranged.

In fact, the value of evolutionary biology reveals that size and strength are not always key to survival! Microbials, for instance, can take down entire populations of animals vastly larger and inestimably more powerful than themselves. Indeed, strength and greatness are wholly relative terms.

“5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. "


Let’s use those dirty little microbials again, shall we? When certain lethal bacteria (take your pick) invade a body, they will literally eat away at the cellar structures until the organism that houses them IS dead! What’s the purpose? To kill what feeds you? What design is this? After all, there are numerous bacteria that coexist with us and help us survive (like the acidic bacteria that help us digest our food). This is directed by an intelligent being? Perhaps that I.D. being should take some remedial classes on how to better design! Nature is filled with all sorts of examples like these. Indeed, this doesn’t look like an intelligent designer in the least. Rather, this looks like survival by natural selection. A world of competing organism attempting to evolve and survive by whatever clumsy means necessary.


But the basic logic of this argument is flawed by this very example I provided above: Just because something acts towards some end doesn’t mean that end makes intelligent sense! Therefore, we have no reason to think that such poor survival management is in any way an indication of organized intelligent design-unless one wants to think very poorly of the designer.


“Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "necessary being" (a being that has to exist) -- which he identified with God?

{ 1 } - God by definition has all positive attributes. But existence is a positive attribute. So God exists by definition -- and of necessity.
{ 2 } - Only a being that exists of necessity could be a suitable object of worship.
{ 3 } - Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being.

Why did Aquinas think that there must be a "first cause" (something that causes other things to exist but that isn't itself caused to exist by anything else) -- which he identified with God?
{ 1 } - There is a second cause, and so there must be a first cause.
{ 2 } - "X causes Y" only means that things like X are followed in our experience by things like Y.
{ 3 } - Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause.
{ 4 } - Causality is only a category that the mind uses to put together the raw data of sensation.”


The problem is obviously with premise (1)! This is actually Anselm’s argument. The problem here is that pure logical definitions are easily refuted: My conceptualized lunch by definition has all positive attributes. But existence is a positive attribute. So, my conceptualized lunch exists by definition and by necessity! Not convinced about my perfect lunch? Good! One shouldn’t be! Conceptual definitions tell us nothing about what’s so, only what we conceptually define as so! This is a very easy trick to perform.

As to the second argument- it too follows on with equally flimsy reasoning: Premise (1) supposes what the cosmic situation was. It supposes that things came about much like one might imagine an assemblyman putting together the first pieces of a toy here and then working on the second pieces there and so forth. Obviously, we have NO good reason to think that this is how things were put together in the least! Even the BB theory suggests that there were numerous elements--and their more basic constituents-- moving in tandem with others combining in all sorts of ways, one forming here another affecting others over there etc. We have no reason to think this is how cosmic causality works!

So, what’s the evaluation thus far? Easy enough. These are fine arguments torn from the pages of history that have inspired men to think and consider themselves in the world. Philosophically, and otherwise, we may respectfully place them alongside many other such deceased ideas better belonging to a bygone day!

Eric D.

Hi Eric use constantly use the term Absurd in response to my augments for the existence of God.

Respectfully they are "absurd to you" BUT not to "billions of humans living on this planet", you are of the tiny minority and should own up to that fact!

How about the below arguments?

http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/believe.php


You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, to prove His existence... No one needs proof that God exists, I simply offer these 8 steps to the logical proof of God's existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing).

Step One: Laws of Logic
In the introduction page I mentioned 'logical proof.' The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way

Step Two: Laws of Mathematics
The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well). For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.

Step Three: Laws of Science
Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.

Step Four: Absolute Moral Laws
I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.

Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs

Step Five: The Nature of Laws (a)
By reaching this stage you might have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?

Step Six: The Nature of Laws (b)
You have to acknowledg that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?
Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)

You have to acknowled that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.


To reach this stage you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.

I never attempt to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything.

Note that the proof does not say that professed unbelievers do not prove things. The argument is that you must borrow from the Divine God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible “in order to prove anything.”
This type of logical proof deals with ‘transcendentals’ or ‘necessary starting points,’ and the proof is called a ‘transcendental proof.’ Any contrary view to the reality of an eternal God, being the necessary starting point for rationality is reduced to absurdity. You have to assume that God exists in order to argue

Does God exist?

Question: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"

Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).

That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

A fifth argument is that sometimes evil persons turn from their wicked ways and become good loving caring people

What do you think?

Love

Alan

Hi Alan

I believe We can verify that there are universal laws governing the interaction of matter. Can these laws arise by accident or do they need a conscious source within which all potential exists?

Since it seems impossible that logical laws can arise by themselves from nothing, the only alternative for me is a conscious source. How this happens is another thread but the bottom line is that the universe seems to have a purpose in its interactions which humanity as a whole is largely oblivious of.

“He who possesses art and science has religion; he who does not possess them, needs religion.” ~ Goethe

It does seem that our hearts which are capable of grasping the psychology of "being" within fine art, are drawn to the need for truth that the scientist is drawn to when seeking to understanding through the scientific method. It just seems that the words science and art normally lack "quality" and keep them separate.

I believe that they are united through the attempt to be open to an ineffable source the heart and mind of man needs to be open to in order to experience objective human meaning and purpose. Why we are not more open to it is another question.

God probably is out there, a part of the universe, maybe more. A simple experiment to prove His "is-ness," is to suppose that He might be out there, and then ask Him to make you believe in Him. If he is out there, He might respond to your prayer by giving you a gift of faith or belief in Him. So, if this happens, this confirms the idea that He is there.

Now, you might be tempted to doubt, ad hoc, this confirmation as some sort of self-delusion. So, you will have to use your newly acquired faith to do some miracles that confirm that something has happened that you were not in control of. Better, in fact, plan on this. Pick out some miracles you want to work with faith ahead of time, things that would be good for others.

If it doesn't happen, well, maybe He is not out there. Or, maybe He is there, but did not want to give you this gift of faith. These alternatives can be separated by asking Him why he did not give you faith, by asking Him for what you might do to prepare yourself to receive. If, with this request made, you sincerely believe that every thing you might have done to qualify yourself to get belief from God is done, and still He does not give you faith, then, from your perspective, He probably does not exist.

But, you are not entirely at the end of your search. In the bible, there is something called "taking the kingdom of God by violence" or force. If God exists, but is hiding Himself from you, you can "prove" Him by "buying the truth," by doing a tithing experiment, as outlined in Malachi. That is, whether or not He gives you a special teaching or gift in response to your request, you might reason that since He and His followers have gone to such great lengths to get a bible available to you, with all it's specific instructions for finding Him, and proving Him, maybe He is waiting for you to do all the stuff written there, before he does any further gifting. "Knock," in other words. Hammer away, make a nuisance of yourself.

It seems to me that a completely clear conscience on this matter requires enough effort on our parts, that we are pretty clear that we have done all we could to get God to respond in a reasonable way. This, alas, cannot be limited to reasoning on our part, for the God we are looking for has made it clear that he is much more into evidence, and "asking, seeking, knocking," then any approach which depends on our understanding. He limits understanding and logic to supportative roles only, and appears to dread the idea of having to invite some "deep thinker" into His everlasting dinner party. Or maybe that is just me.

I forsee this concluding much like the last debate. If I believe in something that I can't substantiate, then how could I convince someone that doesn't believe? My perceptions and interpretations of any recorded literature is not going to be exactly the same as yours and any evidence can be accepted or rejected on a spiritual or natiural basis. Those that believe that God exists, believe that they share a personal relationship with him. Those that don't believe, consider a relationship with a god like entity, nonsense. For myself personally, I believe what I see; but I can't see what I don't believe. At the same time if I can't see what I believe, then I conclude that there is incorrect data somewhere; ergo to correct the data will substantiate or refute, what I believe.

Alan McDougall:

"Does God exist?"

"Question: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"

Actually two questions but that is a quibble. Quibble - now that's a word.

In re question A: I don't know.

In re question B: I think so. I mow the lawn and think of how grass grows [too quickly by half], survives the winter, grows anew. I don't know why. I mean, I get the science of most of it but...

I looked for the first time at my daughter, and wondered but I thought so. And gazing on my son, and second daughter, and third. Each time I wondered. Each time I thought so.

Jesuits and Carmelites conditioned my thinking, urged me to question... And the idea of hubris... Well. I read all the responses to the question(s). Impressive stuff. Conclusion: no rights or wrongs - opinions. How easy it is to get exercised over the question(s), as if it is important to coax another to one's view [sometimes read: belief] but it isn't.

If there is a god, perhaps the proof is in all of the conversations. I don't know. I do think that if God exists, there exists a wonderful sense of humor, the font of all humor, and irony.

Just felt like writing some thing. Carry on.

I forsee this concluding much like the last debate. If I believe in something that I can't substantiate, then how could I convince someone that doesn't believe? My perceptions and interpretations of any recorded literature is not going to be exactly the same as yours and any evidence can be accepted or rejected on a spiritual or natiural basis. Those that believe that God exists, believe that they share a personal relationship with him. Those that don't believe, consider a relationship with a god like entity, nonsense. For myself personally, I believe what I see; but I can't see what I don't believe. At the same time if I can't see what I believe, then I conclude that there is incorrect data somewhere; ergo to correct the data will substantiate or refute, what I believe.

Oh, it won't conclude. And, it is not exactly a debate, for debates have some system where the winner and loser are decided by some sort of judge. Lots of folks here have zero preparation for changing their minds. So. your question, "How could I convince someone that doesn't believe?" remains rhetorical.

But we can remind (?) everyone that, if they do not have an answer to this question you ask, they are trapped by hubris. They are concluded already. There is wisdom, and humility, in looking at a Yeshua or a Calvin, or a George Muller, and their historical success, and letting their arguments and interpretations persuade one. (Any successful atheists to recognize?).

So, the biblical caution remains: "If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing as he should."

Alan McDougall,
You certainly have a sound understanding of arguments for the existence of God. Before I continue too far I want to clarify that this is not an ad homonym argument. I’m just curious if you are familiar with the arguments against the existence of God?

I would like to address your last argument where you depict St. Thomas Aquinas. Although I agree that Aquinas is a very good philosopher, his arguments for the existence for God are all unfortunately countered without too much difficulty.

The first two proofs can be countered as one. The reason is that the need for a first cause does not necessarily lead to the existence of what we coin as God. For someone so well versed in science it should be clear that leaping to God for such an argument is taking the easy way out. One cannot come to terms with the beginning of something be independent from what continues without it being super natural. I personally enjoy Dawkins argument at this point. “If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can’t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent.”

The intelligent designer argument for the most part is not even accepted by even those who believe in God anymore. The reason is that evolution which is proven, has shown that everything has turned into what it is because it is by adaptation, which is what one perceives as being designed by a superior being.

I also noticed that, for some reason you tried to include the logical proof? I apologize but to attempt to prove something exists using Logic is a grave, and unacceptable misunderstanding of what logic can actually do. Although the other arguments were merely grounded on evidence worth debating, to use basic Logic to prove something’s existence is to simply misunderstand how to use Logic. In fact, it is accepted by all that Logic can not do that. For example.

Unicorns are Horses with Horns = U
Horns Exist = I
Horses exist = H
Unicorns Exist = E
[U ^( H ^I ) ] ↄ E Logical, but it certainly doesn’t hold

Near death experience should not even be included in a philosophical argument. It is not evidence. Perhaps it will help solidify one’s own beliefs, but in terms of an actual argument it does not move the evidence scale either way.

My apologies to all who have made these points above.

Hi, Alan,

Your words assure me that you are a nice fellow. Your tone is a welcome relief from the occasional snarkiness among some of my fellow skeptics. But the arguments that you review are atrocious.

I will ignore your biblical “evidence”; the fact that God is mentioned in the Bible means no more than the fact that giant ants are mentioned in the histories of Heroditus. While it is true that modern scholarship and archeology vindicates such claims as the existence of one Yeshua (Jesus), there is no archeological evidence for any of the miracles or disembodied beings that the Bible describes. No bones of human 900 year-olds have been discovered either.

Alan wrote: “Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.”

The popularity or ubiquity of any belief does nothing to insure its truth. The vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents have believed in some kind of sympathetic magic, but there remains no good reason to believe in its efficacy.

Alan wrote: “The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.”

People who are about a hundred times as smart as I am still debate this argument today. However, no one has come up with a definitive defense for this argument. The most common objection to it is Kant’s, who pointed out that no definition guarantees the existence of the thing defined. The definition of triangle does not guarantee that a room—or a possible world—will actually contain anything triangular. Similarly, defining something as necessarily extant does nothing to insure that there is such a thing as a necessary being.

Alan wrote: “A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.”

Protein molecules don’t form by chance, they form according to regular sequences of cause and effect that chemists and physicists have discovered. One can compute similar odds against the formation of water in a canister that contains a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases. But when acted on by certain forces, the two gases combine to form water, not randomly, but predictably.

But let’s set aside, for a moment, the *bogus* idea that molecules combine in a completely random fashion and the consequent *bogus* odds. How many galaxies are there? Billions. How many stars in each galaxy? Billions. How many galaxies are there; have we counted them all? Not by a long shot. Even if the formation of life on Earth were astronomically improbable, there would probably be enough worlds in the entire universe to make the existence of our one little life-bearing world all but inevitable.

Incidentally, if the universe were designed to manufacture life, the design must be extremely poor, since life constitutes an all but infinitesimal percentage of its mass. As a life-generating machine, the universe is even more absurdly designed than a Jupiter-sized factory “designed” to manufacture a single bacterium once every 4 billion years.

Alan wrote: “A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.”

I wonder why everyone forgets the conservation of mass/energy when considering this argument. Since matter can’t be created or destroyed within the universe, it is the arrangements of matter and energy that have causes, not the matter and energy itself. What is more, the fact that every arrangement of mass/energy in the universe has a cause does not imply that the whole universe must have had a cause. Stephen Hawking has argued in his book, “The Grand Design,” that the formation of the *whole* universe from nothing is consistent with modern physics.

Alan wrote: “A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?”

From necessity. I don’t know if there is a planet where parents don’t care whether their children kill each other or their their older relatives. I don’t know if there’s a planet where people love to have their stuff stolen or their reputations smeared with lies. But I know that *Earth is no such planet*. Moral codes are broadly similar among human beings because they satisfy broadly similar desires for security and trust in both the physical and social spheres of human influence. By the way, moral codes only apply to human beings. It makes no sense to speak of any object, force, or sub-human creature as having moral responsibility. So why would anyone assume that our moral choices have cosmic import when they only exist among humans?

Alan wrote: “A fifth argument is that sometimes evil persons turn from their wicked ways and become good loving caring people.”

What you’ve just described is too local and too small an effect to remotely justify the conclusion that there must be an infinitely powerful, omnipresent, omniscient, and all-loving God. What is more, while I don’t think that you are a cynical person, there is nonetheless a profoundly cynical assumption implicit in your argument—namely that it would take a literally infinite power to prompt any human being to engage in meaningful self-reform toward benevolence.

Conclusion: Alan, your five arguments are quite old and, IMO, quite unsound for the reasons just stated. Some are mutually incompatible. For example, if the ontological argument is sound, and God literally exists by definition, then all the other arguments must be garbage, since they purport to prove God by empirical evidence.

Most importantly, for you anyway, all of the arguments are theologically unsatisfactory. The God who gave his only begotten son to save humanity from its own sin is not a mere First Cause. The God who demanded and then halted Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is not some cosmic watchmaker. The God who not only created but loved humanity as a creature in his own image is not the unusually active definition proclaimed by the ontological argument.

Before you trot these arguments out again, please read David Hume’s “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.” Also look for other sources on the arguments in question. '

Unbelievers like me dismiss such arguments for obvious reasons, but a great many believers dismiss them as well. For them, God is an object of humble faith, a deity too great to be encompassed or proven by mere human inquiry. Take a look at the great Protestant theologian, Karl Barth, for example.

--Jim G.

Allen.
This question you posted seems disingenuous on your part going by subsequent postings where you state emphatically that God exist, so you really were not after truth, so why?

Whatever, this question has not been resolved in the last 2000+ years and it will not be resolved here either.
The claims of proof have been myriad, just about as many as predictions of the end of the world, but we'r still here.
I think that the intelligent Theist and Atheist are really not that far apart. The Theist says I believe but I can not prove it, and the Atheist says I do not believe however I can not be sure.
Within Christianity many have a very much altered view and understanding of the Bible, The majority have gone away from the notion that the Bible is the word of God, to the one of the word of God is in the Bible.

Of one thing I am convinced is that if there is a God, what we do or do not do seems of no concern to it.
If it mattered to this deity or deities it would have put out a lot more awareness over the years, instead of only appearing a few times, and then to one person only.
Even in the biblical justice system, the evidence from a single person was not deemed to have any value.

So if there is a Deity out there I think it is time to send it a note, suggesting a complete overhaul of its PR department.

Hi, Alan,

Regarding your description of the transcendental argument, it is odd that anyone would think that one cannot reason at all without such dubious “starting points” as a being that is both three and one (3=1?), not to mention the many unproved and physically absurd stories that the Bible recounts. But let’s look at your review of the transcendental argument step-by-step.

Alan wrote: “Step One: Laws of Logic
In the introduction page I mentioned 'logical proof.' The first step towards the proof that God exists is to determine whether you actually believe that laws of logic exist. Logical proof would be irrelevant to someone who denies that laws of logic exist. An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way.”

The law of the non-contradiction is not an object of belief; it is a prerequisite for rational discourse. For example, nothing can be both three and not three; therefore the Trinity is a contradiction in terms.

Alan wrote: “Step Two: Laws of Mathematics
The basic operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Laws of mathematics then, are basically descriptions of what happens within these operations (and more complex ones as well). For example, with the law of addition we know that if you take 4 things and add them to 3 things, you end up with 7 things.”

Three still does not equal one.

Alan wrote: “Step Three: Laws of Science
Laws of science are basically descriptions of what matter does based on repeated observations, and are usually expressed in mathematical equations. An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation.”

Though Newton believed in God, the existence of God does not follow from his equations, and Newton’s equations do not follow from the claim that God exists.

Alan wrote: “Step Four: Absolute Moral Laws
I have seldom heard anyone deny that laws of logic, mathematics, or science exist, but I have often heard people deny the existence of absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave. Rape, and child molestation, are two examples of absolute moral wrongs.”

In this stage of your argument, “absolute” is a weasel word. You are labeling two entirely separate things as “absolute.” One is standards of conduct that are universal among benevolent people with person-centered ethics. These standards of conduct exist only where human beings exist; they are shared mental events. As such, they differ radically from absolute abstracta like the ratio pi, whose value is constant throughout ordinary space and time.

Alan wrote: “Step Five: The Nature of Laws (a)
By reaching this stage you might have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Next we will examine what you believe about these laws. Are these laws material, or are they immaterial? In other words, are they made of matter, or are they 'abstract' entities? - are they physical or non-physical things?”

Abstracta aren’t made of anything. They are not things or entities. They are features of reality that obtain anywhere in space and time where logically applicable. They can be described and spoken of apart from the rest of reality. But this does not mean that they can *actually obtain* apart from rest the of reality. For example, we can *talk about pairs* without talking about the material things, but there can’t *be* any pairs without material things.

What is more, since material things embody the abstracta down to the sub-atomic level, material things as we know them aren’t even conceivable apart from the abstracta. So your dichotomy between “immaterial laws” and “material laws” is literal nonsense.

Alan wrote: “Step Six: The Nature of Laws (b)
You have to acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist and that they are not made of matter. The next question is whether you believe they are universal or up to the individual. Does 2 + 2 = 4 only where you are, and only because you say it does, or is this a universal law?”

Again, abstracta and material things don’t obtain & exist without each other.

Alan wrote: “Step Seven: The Nature of Laws (c)
You have to acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, that they are not made of matter, and that they are universal. The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging.”

Ask the people who know something about fuzzy and multi-valued logic; they can answer this question much better than I can.

Alan wrote: “To reach this stage you had to acknowledge that immaterial, universal, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.”

*Absolutely nothing* in the argument establishes the actual independence of your “laws” (abstracta) from the reality in which they obtain.

*Absolutely nothing* in the argument implies that the laws you list must have had an author, let alone one who cares about every sparrow that falls to the earth.

*Absolutely nothing* in the argument establishes the existence of any disembodied being or thing. Remember, abstracta are neither things nor beings.

In short, the transcendental argument fails because it confuses abstraction with transcendence.

--Jim G.

-- Updated Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:45 am to add the following --

Hi, Everybody,

For the good of the order:

When it comes to religion, I think we all need to remember the difference between a reason for one person to believe something and a reason for everyone to believe something.

Suppose I encountered a wondrous whirling column of opalescent energy in my garage, and it spoke to me and told me that things would be okay before disappearing into thin air. If I had no other symptoms of any disorder that causes hallucinations, and if nothing else in my environment or sensorium seemed remotely abnormal before, during, or after the experience, I would believe that a unknown type of being had visited me.

However, I would not expect anyone else to believe in this being in the absence of any evidence or compelling intellectual argument.

--Jim G.

Alan,
I thought you made a post to have an intellectual debate, if you wanted everyone to agree with you, next time please say that no differing views aloud, Theists only. I hope there is an afterlife for you, disappointment can hit harder than a philosophical debate if there isn’t.

Thanks