Philosophical Argument for the EXISTENCE OF GOD
Submitted by rftbunny on Sun, 11/22/2009 - 01:11
Hey,
I am not religious but follow many christian values. Can someone here at the Daily Paul direct me toward some short readings, papers, or essays that support the idea of the EXISTENCE OF GOD.
I would like to do some reading and thinking for myself instead of having people yell at me that I am or am not stupid because I am or am not a believer.
Please List Authors .. and titles of works so that I can google them ..etc
»
Wrong place, bucko
Let's not open up that can of worms. The rEVOLution is a place where people of all different religious persuasions can come together and set aside those beliefs, tolerating freedom. Let's not get off track with these divisive tangents.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
LUCKY LOTTERY TICKET OF EXISTENCE
Just crunch the numbers - the probabilities of you existing in this universe at this moment - to win this lucky lottery ticket we call life.
I'd put my money on a higher power rather than holding the most lucky lottery ticket ever. Every moment is a prize - enjoy them.
"Freedom on this Earth can only be found within oneself. All the power you'll need is inside - embedded within you."
"Freedom on this Earth can only be found within oneself. All the power you'll need is inside - embedded within you."
I saw a license plate today that said "CAZ2143"!
What are the odds of that?!
CHA-CHING!
CHA-CHING!
statistics and entropy
Highly ordered arrangements are the least likely to occur spontaneously because all things tend towards disorder; work has to be performed to fight entropy...work has to be performed to order things.
If there is a God, wouldn't God be highly ordered...the most highly ordered of all things?
And wouldn't this situation be the most improbable of all?
Does God have a creator, too, to solve the improbability of his existence?
Life is extremely unstable and very highly ordered; that's why we eat and breathe constantly...to burn the fuel that releases the energy required to maintain order.
Take a moment's rest in the fight against entropy, and that rest will surely be your last.
PS. I sincerely wish there were a God who was just, wise, powerful, merciful, and ultimately responsible...but alas, it's just us down here.
You make the false
You make the false assumption that statistics are reality, when in in fact, they are not. Of course, I am thinking about that famous quote by Mark Twain about right now.
The physical laws of nature are not based upon probability, they are based on fact. If they were not, science would be impossible and not reproducible.
The fact is, any given thing or things under identical circumstances will behave and perform in exactly the same manner, any illusion of chaos or randomness is just an illusion and a failure to take all of the factors into consideration that caused an event to occur.
These factors may be varied and complex and ultimately might have an overall minimal effect on the event, but they still have an effect, Entropy is just kind of a broad theory for factoring in that variation but its not representative of real truth itself. You would have to know ALL of the factors to minute detail in order to predict accurately even thermodynamics.
The only true chaos in the world is free-will, for it takes deliberate action in order to truly divert the laws of nature.
Whether God is just, wise, powerful, merciful and ultimately responsible or not is the subject of debate as these are traditional assumptions of many organized religions in the world today, but I make no such assumptions. My belief is based solely on the observation of the Creation (the Universe) itself and the laws of nature that govern that Creation and also the social laws of nature that promote a free and civil society.
"Just" requires your perception of justice, and that can include a variety of different things when analyzing what justice is or is not. Is my beloved cat suffering from a heart attack or stroke at the age of 4 years old and dying right in front of my eyes in seconds without any previous perceived cause or health problems an example of how God doesn't exist, for if he did, a just and merciful God would not have me go through such pain, or is it an example of how God is a sadistic evil bastard that hates me and wants to punish me?
Or is the truth something completely different that requires a philosophical understanding of the notions of free-will and Liberty? I do not believe that God intervenes and causes or dis-causes events to occur, for to do so completely thwarts the notion of free-will and Liberty and smacks of predetermination or fate. Can He? Sure, probably. Does He, on occasion? Maybe, probably. Why doesn't He? Well, that goes back to the free will thing again. I rather just believe that God is responsible for the creation of these laws of nature that ultimately shape and form the universe, but as far as why bad things happen or things we dont understand I just chalk that reason up to being that if the universe was indeed perfect (according to our own ideas of perfection), that we either wouldn't appreciate it anyway, and that one mans utopia is another mans nightmare and that ultimately free-will is really the proper, and right choice.
when bad things happen to good people
I read a book with a title like that years ago, and I recommend it to others.
The author explores the meaning of the Book of Job.
When believers experience tragedy and loss, they are confronted with some serious dilemmas...
Do I deserve to suffer? Am I bad?
Is God actually powerful enough to punish or reward?
Is God both all powerful and just...or all powerful and not just...or not all powerful (which makes the question of justice irrelevant)?
Has God abandoned me? Is God even real?
The author of that book did a top notch job of articulating those experiences.
Please accept my condolescences on the loss of your cat.
Lots of good questions.
People bet a lot of money based on the belief of randomness. They put their money where mouth is, so to speak. We can measure randomness, or better to say we measure the lack of it. There are many tools for detecting signals in the noise. While playing Blackjack detecting a signal (stacked deck) would be a warning to get out of the game. On the other hand we tune our radio to get the best signal.
I would argue that nature is conditioned, that is a long chain of causes and effects. Therefore freedom or liberty are not natural. They cannot be proven.
Nor can truth or justice. Then how does the individual come to know they are being honest or fair?
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
If Or If Not
If there is no God then make each person alike. If there is a God then make each person different. The only trouble is you have to have a maker to do one of the other.
TheKingIsComing
Why out of all the animal
Why out of all the animal life on the planet do humans understand Music? Where does it come from. Why do people "feel" mathematical equations?
Why are we swayed by "time signatures" feeling the beat as it were.
There is a power stronger than us. No book can explain it. It rumbles up from the deep parts of our soul and must be taken of faith.
As a musician
.I may be able to help with this question
and very good one I would like to add !
It relates to the quantum physics of
the frequence vibrations of the very atoms
that we are made of,when the human body
hears or feels certain frequences it produces
endorphines that make this person feel good.
or none and we get bored with what we hear.
In animals,they really do not know what is
happening and cannot express how
they feel (except for dogs howling at train
horn or sirens)and this is only because it is
painful for them and rattles their eardrums.
"The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it. "
Confucius
Trying to get an interesting website rolling along, Offering free banners to DP business owners. Please contact me through the DP for details with size Etc. If you don't have one I can adjust, I will make you one.
http://www.shtfknowledge.com/index.php
But
.Humans are the only ones that produce these endorphines
"The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it. "
Confucius
Trying to get an interesting website rolling along, Offering free banners to DP business owners. Please contact me through the DP for details with size Etc. If you don't have one I can adjust, I will make you one.
http://www.shtfknowledge.com/index.php
60's
.This is where the saying"Vibes" came from in the 1960's
Trust me I know what vibes are,"Can you dig it ?"
"The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it. "
Confucius
Trying to get an interesting website rolling along, Offering free banners to DP business owners. Please contact me through the DP for details with size Etc. If you don't have one I can adjust, I will make you one.
http://www.shtfknowledge.com/index.php
Man ! I missed some very good stuff
While I was out !
"The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it. "
Confucius
Trying to get an interesting website rolling along, Offering free banners to DP business owners. Please contact me through the DP for details with size Etc. If you don't have one I can adjust, I will make you one.
http://www.shtfknowledge.com/index.php
My Favorite Philosophical Argument for the Existence of God
The CTMU explains that reality has arisen from unbound potential that precedes both the laws of logic and physics. From this infinite freedom, reality arises by the application of two-valued logic by the "mind of reality" in order to filter out that which doesn't conform to a functioning logical reality. It is by this process, proto-computation, that reality freely generates both the law and the content of reality.
Is this just an interesting philosophy by a smart guy, or is the theory derivable from tautologies as it claims? Well, that's a tough question, but it's a mind-expanding read either way.
I have never attacked other religions or the unreligious . . .
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
ever. I have never laughed at anyone else's beliefs. I have never thought atheists were 'scary'. I never fell for the chain mails (in early e-mail days) about Madeline O'Hare and how she was destroying America.
I do not understand how anyone can laugh at anyone else's beliefs or lack of them, so maybe I am not the one to ask.
But I am a Christian. That means I believe in Christ. I believe He has a Father. I believe that VERY few people who call themselves Christians have ever had the moral courage or the spiritual desire or call it whatever you might want to call it--
to follow Jesus Christ. And I believe He still loves them, and *I* have to love them, no matter what or who or where they are. It's HARD to love Dick Cheney, George Bush, Henry Kissinger, and David Rockefeller. I don't LIKE them. I don't think God needs me to like them. What God needs me to do for ME is to wish them no harm, in spite of whatever harm they may do to me or anyone else. That is as far as the definition of love goes for them. They are my enemies, and God commands me to love my enemies. Hard job. I try.
Jesus told His followers to follow Him, but . . . few have even tried.
George MacDonald, a Scottish minister who was kicked out of his church for preaching 'heresy' once said that talking about doing good things often substitutes for doing good things, so ANY religion or lack thereof is subject to this human weakness.
You talk about freedom, but do you DO freedom?
You talk about God, but do you DO God?
You talk about morality, but do you DO morality?
et cetera
Churches can be dangerous places (though they don't have to be), because people might be tempted to go and TALK about goodness and feel that they have done their 'goodness duty' for the day--
and then go back to being 'dog eat dog' or 'each man/woman for him/herself' or whatever it is that most humans would believe without a God to direct them.
I believe, as a Christian, that serious, heavy damage was done to the Bible in multiple translations over many centuries.
I agree with the Irish priests (and I'm not a Catholic) who, after surveying the damage done in Israel in the post-Israel establishment (1940s/1950s and beyond)--
stated publicly that things were badly messed up in the ancient Old Testament texts in order to justify aggression--
yet, those priests and many others have still searched and taken the things from the Bible that point to Jesus Christ and left the rest of it to simmer on a back burner in the scriptural cosmos--
I have been annoyed by the proselyting of radical Christians and others, including Atheists.
Why are we uncomfortable if someone else doesn't believe as we do?
Perhaps because we are not really so sure of our own beliefs ourselves and want 'company'--
But, if you can find a good book or philosophy that argues for the belief in God, you are welcome to share it here.
In the meantime, I highly recommend reading the works of:
Soren Kierkegaard, a Christian existentialist and philosopher
C.S. Lewis, a British scholar, professor, writer, and Christian apologist
I had another in mind, but the name fled.
George MacDonald, the minister and author I mentioned earlier, is, for me, one of the most inspiring writers and philosophers. He might also be considered a Christian apologist; his writings influenced C.S. Lewis heavily. C. S. Lewis spent years as an atheist and then converted to Christianity.
However, George MacDonald's works are not easy to find in the original form.
Start with those two. There are people who argue for God from other major world religions.
My chief argument is that if there is no Creator, then why not live like animals? We are repelled by that thought. There is a primal call, even an archetypal form, for Creator God and Father/Mother God. All cultures have it. Just as all cultures that have survived have basic family forms that are quite typical for every other culture.
So, I have always wondered why, since I don't go around telling others they must believe in Jesus Christ and His Father and a Holy Spirit--
. . .
others have to try to tell me there is no God.
I respect the right of ANYone not to believe in God. But I affirm that if he/she must try to convince me that there is not a God, he/she must be insecure in that belief or nonbelief.
When we do not believe in God, there is no reason why we cannot consider ourselves to be, simply, part of the laws of 'the jungle'--
He or she who is strong enough can conquer any other human 'animal', since we can't call anyone a 'creature', since there is no creator.
He or she who is strong enough or intelligent enough can conquer, control, or USE any other 'being' who is weak enough to be conquered.
This is, perhaps, my strongest reason for WANTING to believe in God.
But, I am not threatened any more by people who claim to believe in God or in Jesus Christ who act in unGodly ways . . .
than I am by someone from my community who chooses to do a thing that is not in the best interests of my community--or carry that on out to the nation or the world.
If someone in my world does a despicable thing . . . does that represent me as a being on the earth?
I hope not.
If I think of another Creator apologist, I will let you know. I am sadly lacking in the names of Bhuddist, Hindu, Jew, or Muslim (or any other) philosophers who are apologists for their religious beliefs.
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
How does the argument follow?
I enjoyed your post. Though your argument confused me.
That if one does not or cannot express belief in something that is nothing for them it somehow follows that they are free to act immorally?
They are free to act immorally no matter their belief or suspension of belief.
If they believe in nothing as if it were something using the force of their will, is that an honest act?
If a religion needs an apology, then why bother. On the other hand since it needs an apology then perhaps its authors recognized themselves as one of us. Human, all too human.
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
On a technical note
The term "apologetics" (and all related terms... apology, apologist, etc) comes from a Greek word and its modern meaning is almost the complete opposite of what its meaning was when used in the Scriptures and as a particular branch of Christian Theology.
An Apologetics is a defense of the faith. It is a defense in the same sense that a defense attorney employs a defense of an accused. For example, when Socrates was accused by the leaders in Athens of corrupting the youth, he stood up and gave his 'apologia', his defense of his acions. He was not saying, "Yes, I regret this and I'm sorry". He was saying, "The accusation is false and here is why...."
Interesting fact !
Right on,A seeker of the future by using the past !
" People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and courageously. This is how character is built."
Eleanor Roosevelt
Trying to get an interesting website rolling along, Offering free banners to DP business owners. Please contact me through the DP for details with size Etc. If you don't have one I can adjust, I will make you one.
http://www.shtfknowledge.com/index.php
I understand what you are saying--
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
but even that kind of thinking cannot exist within a vacuum--
Oh, YES, I like the idea of apologists!!!
Indeed--
of course, we are human!!!
Those who know scripture know that God does NOT want us to trust in man--
I can admire or respect humans, but I don't trust anyone--
VERY few people really understand what it is to follow God--
many believe that they believe in God, but to TRULY believe is a pretty significant investment.
Those who REALLY believe are those who save others. People who believe are the people who work miracles.
I believe Godly people have been behind all the miracles . . .--
for example, getting the Jews out of Denmark--
I also believe that religion gone awry (with no true belief in God) is behind most of the atrocities.
One of the problems this 'culture' has is that there is a religious base for most morality--
so it CAN be aruged. And because it can be argued, it can be attacked. That's fine; God is capable of dealing with attack. Anyone who really believes in Him doesn't get too fussed over the idea of God being attacked.
Where there is religion there is ALWAYS the possibility that someone within that religious culture will 'get' God and live by God and do amazing and wonderful things. Because the IDEA is there.
Without God where is the IDEA for goodness? You have to be aware of goodness on some level. From where does it come? It can't come out of nowhere.
People who know nothing of God or while not believing in God of morals . . . cannot be moral. They will be amoral, whether or not their actions are good. Morals are only defined by the culture.
A person can be IMmoral only when morals exist.
Take God away and why have any concept of morality?
What is the basis?
If there were no religion with its idea of morality, who knows where civilization would be--
I don't.
Nobody can say, because there is religion. There has never been a purely Godless society--not that anyone can prove.
If there has been, why don't *we* know about it?
But, then, I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. I am just trying to state what I think the philosophical dilemma is.
If I can *see* a completely and purely Godless society . . . if someone can pull it out of a historical hat for me . . . and say, "see what happens when there is no God at all"--
then I can talk about it. 'Til then . . .
it's all just supposition and conjecture.
Only then could be compare, and comparison is important to knowledge.
Unfortunately, for those who don't believe in God, there has always been the notion of God around, so . . . nobody can prove pure atheism and its ramifications.
THAT is a dilemma.
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
You guys make this topic way too complex
That's why there is no consensus.
Christian-Individualist should find way way way more comfort (even enjoyment) around Atheist-Individualist -- as long as both are Consumer-Individualist first.
Counter-Economics brings everyone together.
The ONLY problem with religious people is that they are encouraged to "debate" and "convert" prior to deep meditative realization.
The ONLY problem with atheist is that they do the same.
Meditation - Conscious-Sleep - and Tension Master can be practiced by both parties -- without Atheistical and Religious overtones.
Zero-Out "hard positions" and focus on practice -- this way you wont offend one another (non-offense is practicing kindness, tolerance, and respect); it is ethical.
Atheist "pray" -- it's called well-wishing or holding a positive light.
and Religious people visit pornsites -- it's called $6billion per year industry (95% of the country claims to be religious); there's just not enough atheist to keep it going.
Both have abortions -- or did you think the 1,400,000 abortions per year were from "atheists"
The good thing about atheists is that they are softer on the groupism thing. One of their main arguments is that the social network of religious people is where most of the war-and-force begin. It's funny because that was Jesus' argument as well.
Religious Individualism + Atheist Individualism = Consumer-Individualism (or it should)
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Until we use words as
Until we use words as windows, language is but a limitation.
I agree
one hundred percent. Words simply point us in a direction. They are limited and often have multiple meanings.
Words...
Then again, we are describing the limitations of words using words. :)
Words...
Then again, we are describing the limitations of words using words. :)
It's so nice to talk to
It's so nice to talk to people with whom I don't have to interpret everything I say.....
I don't want to hear another peep out of you atheist's
Have you ever heard anyone say, “you can’t legislate morality.” Have you ever thought about what that means? If it means that simply making a law for or against some activity will make people obey, then everyone would have to agree and it makes no sense to say such a tautology. But this is not what people usually mean when they say this phrase. They usually mean that you shouldn’t make laws that reflect your view of right and wrong. Do you see the rub here? If you don’t want to legislate morality, then you shouldn’t legislate at all. What is legislation? It is writing down a law that either encourages or discourages an activity, it is saying one thing is morally right or another thing is morally wrong. Therefore, the phrase, “you can’t legislate morality” is one of the most asinine propositions that could roll off someone’s lips.
The point being is that, it is not whether or not you are going to legislate morality but WHOSE morality you are going to legislate. Most people would say that it’s the beliefs of the majority that should be legislated. But then it would not make sense for anyone in the minority to complain given this standard of morality. How is it possible for someone to stand outside of this scenario and claim that the majority is wrong. It is only possible if there is some transcendent standard of morality that exists outside humanity to appeal to. This can only be true if a transcendent moral law-giver exists. So I don’t want to hear another moral complaint out of anyone that doesn’t believe in God.
Depends on your definition of morality...
In the context that libertarians say “you can’t legislate morality.”, they are talking about consensual crimes (drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc.), where your action has no direct and very little indirect affect on the property or rights of another.
I gather that by your definition of morality, it's immoral to steal and kill. That's true of course, but is just not the context that libertarians use.
So, “you can’t legislate morality.”, is not as "asinine" as you say, in the common libertarian usage.
--------
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It doesn’t matter
You are still using it to define whether or not something is moral or not. If you make a law legalizing a certain action, you are legislating that thing to be considered “moral”.
Don’t get me wrong, lots of Christians support civil laws against things that are considered sins that God has never instructed us to make civil laws against. For example: God considers drunkenness a sin but no where in His word does He instruct us to make this a civil crime. Now if someone’s drunkenness causes him to commit an act of manslaughter, he should be punished according to the laws of manslaughter. Drug use would fall into the same category. It would do Christians a lot of good to study God’s word to make sure they are not going beyond what God has said as the Pharisee’s in Jesus’ time did. They would make law on top of law that went way beyond the spirit and the letter of the law, nullifying God’s law in the process. Certainly evil men in government love to capitalize on what Christians consider sins but not civil crimes and use these laws to basically make criminals out of everyone so that they can grow the size and scope of government and exercise more and more control over the people. I admit that as a Christian I was misled by a lot of their arguments but have since discovered most of these kinds of laws are not only fraudulent but that, like in the case of the war on drugs, our government is actually guilty of being the main drug pushers in this country and only apply the laws to the people that are not part of their operation. Hypocrite’s, just like the Pharisee’s. So my criticisms apply across the board to Christians and non-Christians alike. God’s word is the objective standard that I use to determine if someone is right or wrong whether they are a Christian or not.
If someone brings up the crusades, I ask what absolute objective standard are you using to determine what they did was wrong. As a Bible-believing Christian, I can look at what God’s word has said about laws governing wars and put it next to the crusades and make the determination that many of the acts done during the crusades were wrong. If I wasn’t a Christian, I would hope that I would have the guts to admit that I am not entitled to use Christian standards of justice to apply to what happened during the crusades but I doubt if I wasn’t a Christian that I would admit to that. The fact of the matter is, without God’s standard of justice as a measuring rod, we are left with; might makes right. Whatever happens, happens, there’s no moral consideration to any action that happens anywhere in this universe whatsoever. From a strictly materialist perspective, what happened during the crusades was that bags of bipedal carbon units used swords to lop the heads off of other bags of bipedal carbon units and there you have it. None of the physical laws governing the universe were violated. Now if you want to stand back an make a moral judgment on the events that occurred, then you first need to admit that absolute objective moral standards exist which requires an absolute moral law giver and no man can make this kind of claim. So you’re left with either remaining silent or appeal to God for your moral judgments.
No
All for freedom? Freedom for all!
Free includes debt-free!
well, now, hold on a minute, Jackson (*wink*)
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
I would say that there is a direct impact on a child whose father uses land to cultivate poppies instead of food-- (drugs)
or on the child whose parents turn his/her house into a meth house . . .
or on the child who is raised by a prostitute to become a prostitute and knows no other life (how awful!)--
or the child who is stolen and sold to be used by evil men in another country . . .
um . . .
gambling . . .
what about the child who goes hungry because his/her parents lose so much at a casino--
no, I don't think there are victimless acts of 'immorality'--
even for those who don't believe in God--
but then, maybe, if a person doesn't believe in God the safety of a child doesn't count?
So . . . ?
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--