There is no evidence for any god. Unless somebody here has something new, that's not up for debate. You can close your eyes and believe with all your might until you burst a blood vessel, but there is no evidence for any god.
I don't know that God exists. I'm not certain, either, that God does not exist. I'm not certain we can ever know for sure save through faith or some kind of personal, mystical experience.
Personally, I think "God", if such there is, is more of a personification of natural creative forces combined with an inner sense of our connection to Existence. No personal, supernatural God, just our connection to a creative, evolving universe.
I think we know God exists in a different way than the way we know science proves things about physical properties. It's more like, how do we know love exists? or truth? or good? I know because I have experienced them. In the same way, that's how I know God exists.
As I said many times before, it all depends on how we define "God."
If we define God as the totality of being, then there can be little doubt about the existence of God. If we define God as an omnipotent supernatural deity who created the world in seven days, then there is no evidence for God.
Many people experience a spiritual dimension to their being. In the Christian tradition, this dimension is called "God" or "Spirit." Other cultures may have other words for it. But no matter what words we use to explain our spirtual experience, the words are a metaphorical explanation of a subjective experience.
I think that, in the not too distant future, there will be a scientfic explanation of what we call the spiritual dimension.
In the end we only know experientially (and what that experience is varies widely). And realistically I am not sure the "know" is the right verb since in the post-Enlightenment world knowledge has become associated with things that can be scientifically proven. Believe comes close. Accept is part of it. I am not really sure what one verb I would use to replace "know".
The existence or non-existence of God can not be proven or disproven in any scientific way.
And chansen there are all sorts of types of evidence other than scientific, measurable, visible forms.
The words "know", "God", and "exists" need to be defined in the OP's question to avoid ambiguity. Assuming, of course, that a meaningful conversation is the goal of the OP.
The existence or non-existence of God can not be proven or disproven in any scientific way.
Just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just like any number of remarkably unlikely entities which have been defined in such a way that they can not be cornered. God has some very interesting company.
GordW wrote:
And chansen there are all sorts of types of evidence other than scientific, measurable, visible forms.
If you lower your standards to include hearsay and anecdotes, absolutely. I'd like to think the question of the existence of God should probably require a little more than the eyewitness testimony of those who have suffered a bonk to the head or those who really, really want God to exist.
OK, from the perspective of someone who does believe, then yes, the better way to phrase it is, "Why would a god need us to lower our standards for its sake?" It's a nice rhetorical question that neatly points out how, if we assume a god, that this god would prefer if we not use those mental faculties that we just assumed he gave us.
It also results in a more awkward segue to the "switching phone companies" line.
The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. That doesn't preclude or exclude evidential and logical arguments. During archaeological digs, we don't find 'proof' of the lives of past civilizations but rather the evidence that remains. We utilize arguments based on the data, observations and knowledge at hand, Some of my former colleagues are finding evidence of civilizations thought to be non-existent of relegated to the level of myth or legend. Here, we go on a 'God dig', if you will.
Since some posters on this thread deny any authority from the Biblical evidence, I will omit those and focus rather on the ‘logical’ arguments. You would encounter these in any introductory university level philosophy, religion, or philosophy of religion course. First, there is the ontological argument, which 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 which 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?
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God. If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
BTW, in all my digs I have never found any 'missing links'.
T rex nice outline - then there is Hartshorne's ontological argument which is different than the traditional a none supernatural one. Then there is Whitehead's cosmological in Process and Reality.
Your first paragraph is nice for it resets the issue beyond the modernistic trap. The trap that even liberals fall into ( and I am part of the liberal theological tradition, having moved into postmodernism in Process Thought>)
First, there is the ontological argument, which 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.
The ontological argument fails because it proposes that the idea of a thing is the same as that thing existing. Further, existence is not a given property of something that is perfect.
Sorry, but I have to cut this short and go sign the papers to sell my house. Suffice to say there are plenty of rebuttals to the other arguments listed, but I don't have the time to give you my take on them right now.
Perfection is meaningless without reference to a purpose. A being that is perfect at promoting universal suffering cannot also be perfect at promoting universal happiness, for these purposes compete with each other. Part of being perfect at promoting universal suffering would entail not being perfect at promoting universal happiness.
Any attempt to invoke "perfection" without reference (explicit or implicit) to a goal, is an incomplete thought.
How do we know God exists? Or do we know at all? What do you think?
It is about faith . . . I cannot prove (or disprove) the existence of God . . . nor do I believe can anyone else. I can only believe in or have faith in that God does exist. For me personally, my belief is, and I have faith that, God exists.
"Proof" is generally not the standard we use to believe or disbelieve in anything in our lives. It's something that applies to abstract logic and mathematics.
The words "know", "God", and "exists" need to be defined in the OP's question to avoid ambiguity. Assuming, of course, that a meaningful conversation is the goal of the OP.
I too am a great fan of defining exactly what we mean when posting a topic.
If "knowing" is "experiential knowning" or "feeling," then most of human experience falls within that category. Little of what we experience, and don't doubt we experience, is not provable in a scientfic way. If "knowing" is scientific knowing only, then we don't know most of what we feel and experience. Does that mean that feelings don't "exist?" Or do they?
"God" is even fuzzier. At the broadest definition, God is the totality of everything, as one inseperable whole: a singularity in a unitive state of nonduality or synthesis. Quite a few scientists agree with that definition beause they assume the Principle of Complementarity to be the underlying cosmic principle, and that the universe which we analyze is therefore in an ultimate state of nonduality or synthesis. In other words, the cosmic analysis proves the cosmic synthesis truthful. And because synthesis is a mystery in analytical terms, and the cosmic synthesis is the ultimate mystery—the mystery of mysteries, if you will—it would not be wrong to call IT God.
I don't 'know' that God exists in any material, right-before-my-eyes, if you were a loving Divinity you would do X and not do Y kind of way. I think that's why we refer to our relationship to religion as 'faith' and not 'knowledge'. I 'know' I cannot look around the world, or my life, etc. without feeling there is something Divine holding my hand, infusing all that is good in my world and giving me strength through the bad. Am I as close to 'knowing' as I can be without actually doing so? Of course - that's why I worship. And in that regard, if I could use the word 'know' without it being parsed, I 'know' there is a God because there is just too much happening in our world and universe to be 'coincidence'. And because I just feel it right to the core of my being, to the point of having no doubt of the existence of the Holy, even if my perception of it changes upon doubt and questioning. But if 'to know' means 'to possess imperical evidence of', then I'm afraid it's true, I have none.
How do I know? I don't. I don't know know. I know what I think, feel, believe... but do I know, for sure? No. I know what I experience. Could I be wrong? Yes, I am (last time I checked)human.
Can those who disagree know know? No. They can know what they think, feel, believe.... but they cannot know for sure. Could they be wrong? Yes, if they too are human.
I however do not feel I need to prove anything in relation to God.
Afterall, I cannot prove, measure, provide evidence of many things, like love. I believe in it, feel it, experience it, know it.
The sun actually does not rise or set, but we would say we saw it, experienced it, felt it...
I really haven't felt the need to "know" one way or the other since about grade 10...the last time I spent trying to really figure it out. There are times that I am without a doubt and times that it seems wildly foolish to me.
I've come to expect and kind of enjoy both seasons.
"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men(and women) feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."
How many people deny that void and easily fill it with other things? It's very hard then to know you're missing anything, UNTIL you've experienced the joy of welcoming God's existence into your life.
My grandfather once said he did not believe in G-d. I was shocked. He explained that G-d was a concept people invented. I sat ready to crap my pants. Then, he said he believed in a thing, a power, a mystery, a higher state... in every person and G-d was the only way we seemed to get it.
I can, no matter the season, say I agree with him.
Waterfall, there is something to fill that desire, within this world. That "something" is faith in another world - or some other faith with the same jist to it. The desire, as I understand it, is for the belief itself. And the belief certainly does exist.
That said, Lewis' basic premise is that we are born with the desire for something beyond this world. On what basis does he make this wild claim?
I don't know Azdgari, but perhaps as one gets older, faced with an illness, lonliness, etc....and the material things become insignificant, we start to assess the worthiness of accumulating stuff and we search for something that fulfils our hearts and not our hands.
That's something learned then, isn't it? It's not something we're born with, if what you say is true. It's something that life in our world, as a human being, conditions into us.
Why, then, do you think that Lewis makes the claim he does?
That's something learned then, isn't it? It's not something we're born with, if what you say is true. It's something that life in our world, as a human being, conditions into us.
Why, then, do you think that Lewis makes the claim he does?
I didn't say it was something learned. I stated that we sometimes ignore the longing for that connection to the spiritual truths by occupying ourselves with the material. That "knowing" is either squelched or nurtured.
I didn't say it was something learned. I stated that we sometimes ignore the longing for that connection to the spiritual truths by occupying ourselves with the material. That "knowing" is either squelched or nurtured.
I don't think that the satisfaction for longing for a deeper spiritual connection is automatically "God". I find it in my connection to the natural world, to the beauty and wonder of the Cosmos, and in my connections to other people. I don't squelch it by occupying myself with the material, but I don't find it in belief in conventional notions of God, either.
^^ Perhaps it is contentment with the universe, for which we yearn? Certainly real paths exist to that. Myriad paths, and some of them traditionally religious. Doesn't help Lewis' argument, does it?
waterfall wrote:
I didn't say it was something learned. I stated that we sometimes ignore the longing for that connection to the spiritual truths by occupying ourselves with the material. That "knowing" is either squelched or nurtured.
As Mendally says, the connection your speak of can exist whether or not the spiritual ideas really are truths. And the ideas certainly exist.
Waterfall, it was not my intention to argue for or against a theological position, but only to comment on the disingenuous argument of C.S. Lewis that you have cited in this thread.
Could it be that Lewis is intentionally using false premises, because truth isn't his primary concern when making his argument?
How do We know God Exists?----Show me the Love you have for your wife or Husband-show me or draw me a pictor of the Love you have for your children.-- for your Brother -sister--Heres an easy one draw a pictor of the love you have for your pet.It's hard Does that mean you don't Love . For most I think not.There are many on wondercafe who have a good brain ,and are much smarter than me . But God is NOT in the Brain HE IS IN THE HEART.So Draw me a pictor of your LOVE ,AND I WILL SHOW YOU GOD
But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.
Perfection is meaningless without reference to a purpose. A being that is perfect at promoting universal suffering cannot also be perfect at promoting universal happiness, for these purposes compete with each other. Part of being perfect at promoting universal suffering would entail not being perfect at promoting universal happiness.
Any attempt to invoke "perfection" without reference (explicit or implicit) to a goal, is an incomplete thought.
Correct then one goes to the actual argument - which is perfect in love - and perfect does also mean to each moment - that is in intention there is an aim toward love that is perfect ( contextual) to each moment - perfect in intentent and in relation to what is now. It is not perfect in the sense of substance nor static as in the greek ideal of perfection - unchanging and immutable. Perfect includes changing and mutable. It is always to the now out love.
The purpose is directed by love that is general and specific to each actual occasion of experience (WilliamJames)
First, there is the ontological argument, which 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.
The ontological argument fails because it proposes that the idea of a thing is the same as that thing existing. Further, existence is not a given property of something that is perfect.
Sorry, but I have to cut this short and go sign the papers to sell my house. Suffice to say there are plenty of rebuttals to the other arguments listed, but I don't have the time to give you my take on them right now.
Agreed to one form of the ontological argument... however, not all ontological arguments check out Charles Hartshorne which is in the above post.
Waterfall, it was not my intention to argue for or against a theological position, but only to comment on the disingenuous argument of C.S. Lewis that you have cited in this thread.
Could it be that Lewis is intentionally using false premises, because truth isn't his primary concern when making his argument?
What part isn't true? That our basic needs are inherited and not learned?
There are a lot of shaky assumptions in his argument, but the false one I am talking about is that the need in question is for the thing Lewis claims it's for - a need for a real supernatural realm, rather than just a need to believe in one.
Correct then one goes to the actual argument - which is perfect in love - and perfect does also mean to each moment - that is in intention there is an aim toward love that is perfect ( contextual) to each moment - perfect in intentent and in relation to what is now. It is not perfect in the sense of substance nor static as in the greek ideal of perfection - unchanging and immutable. Perfect includes changing and mutable. It is always to the now out love.
The purpose is directed by love that is general and specific to each actual occasion of experience (WilliamJames)
To which actual argument do you refer, Panentheism?
i don't think that anyone "knows" that god exists but can believe it with every fiber of their being, but that doesn't mean that they know it as fact. even with personal experiences that one may have, hearing god's voice or having a vision; this just means that they experienced something and they have an interputation of what it is they experienced or witnessed.
i don't think that anyone "knows" that god exists but can believe it with every fiber of their being, but that doesn't mean that they know it as fact. even with personal experiences that one may have, hearing god's voice or having a vision; this just means that they experienced something and they have an interputation of what it is they experienced or witnessed.
Lover, isn't this the same as what modern physics tell us about our experiencing of observing anything at all?
Both Abslem which is problematic and Lewis supernaturalism which is even more of problem and then Hartshorne's revision of the ontological argument. In other words Anselm does the orginial and then there problems in it. It is all around the issue of perfect - he is substance thinker. Hartshorne revises perfect.
You are correct in your post about reference to more than the statement -
Comments
chansen
There is no evidence for any
Posted on: 11/16/2010 13:59
There is no evidence for any god. Unless somebody here has something new, that's not up for debate. You can close your eyes and believe with all your might until you burst a blood vessel, but there is no evidence for any god.
Mendalla
I don't know that God exists.
Posted on: 11/16/2010 14:06
I don't know that God exists. I'm not certain, either, that God does not exist. I'm not certain we can ever know for sure save through faith or some kind of personal, mystical experience.
Personally, I think "God", if such there is, is more of a personification of natural creative forces combined with an inner sense of our connection to Existence. No personal, supernatural God, just our connection to a creative, evolving universe.
Mendalla
Xango
I think we know God exists in
Posted on: 11/16/2010 14:11
I think we know God exists in a different way than the way we know science proves things about physical properties. It's more like, how do we know love exists? or truth? or good? I know because I have experienced them. In the same way, that's how I know God exists.
Arminius
As I said many times before,
Posted on: 11/16/2010 14:17
As I said many times before, it all depends on how we define "God."
If we define God as the totality of being, then there can be little doubt about the existence of God. If we define God as an omnipotent supernatural deity who created the world in seven days, then there is no evidence for God.
Many people experience a spiritual dimension to their being. In the Christian tradition, this dimension is called "God" or "Spirit." Other cultures may have other words for it. But no matter what words we use to explain our spirtual experience, the words are a metaphorical explanation of a subjective experience.
I think that, in the not too distant future, there will be a scientfic explanation of what we call the spiritual dimension.
musicsooths
empirical proof not that we
Posted on: 11/16/2010 14:25
empirical proof not that we can measure. experiencial proof lots of it.
GordW
In the end we only know
Posted on: 11/16/2010 14:29
In the end we only know experientially (and what that experience is varies widely). And realistically I am not sure the "know" is the right verb since in the post-Enlightenment world knowledge has become associated with things that can be scientifically proven. Believe comes close. Accept is part of it. I am not really sure what one verb I would use to replace "know".
The existence or non-existence of God can not be proven or disproven in any scientific way.
And chansen there are all sorts of types of evidence other than scientific, measurable, visible forms.
Arminius
I agree with musicsooths and
Posted on: 11/16/2010 14:33
I agree with musicsooths and Gord: we know experientially.
Faith is to trust that experiential knowledge.
Azdgari
The words "know", "God", and
Posted on: 11/16/2010 15:11
The words "know", "God", and "exists" need to be defined in the OP's question to avoid ambiguity. Assuming, of course, that a meaningful conversation is the goal of the OP.
blackbelt
Arminius wrote: I agree with
Posted on: 11/16/2010 15:21
I agree with musicsooths and Gord: we know experientially.
Faith is to trust that experiential knowledge.
I guess the next big question would be, How do we know that what we experance, is in fact , from God?
Azdgari
^^ That sounds like something
Posted on: 11/16/2010 15:23
^^ That sounds like something I was asking you a while back.
chansen
GordW wrote: The existence or
Posted on: 11/16/2010 15:38
The existence or non-existence of God can not be proven or disproven in any scientific way.
Just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just like any number of remarkably unlikely entities which have been defined in such a way that they can not be cornered. God has some very interesting company.
And chansen there are all sorts of types of evidence other than scientific, measurable, visible forms.
If you lower your standards to include hearsay and anecdotes, absolutely. I'd like to think the question of the existence of God should probably require a little more than the eyewitness testimony of those who have suffered a bonk to the head or those who really, really want God to exist.
Azdgari
That invites an
Posted on: 11/16/2010 15:52
That invites an interesting question, chansen: Why would a god need us to lower our standards for its sake?
chansen
It's not a god asking for the
Posted on: 11/16/2010 16:06
It's not a god asking for the standards to be lowered. It's people who believe in gods who want the standards lowered in this case.
They would probably demand more evidence before they agreed to switch phone companies.
Azdgari
I said "need", not "ask".
Posted on: 11/16/2010 16:06
I said "need", not "ask".
chansen
OK, then it's not a god
Posted on: 11/16/2010 16:08
OK, then it's not a god needing the standards to be lowered. It's people who believe in gods who need the standards lowered in this case.
I don't have a new zinger.
Azdgari
That makes sense, when asking
Posted on: 11/16/2010 16:10
That makes sense, when asking the question of you or of me. But there's little point in asking the question of you or me.
The question is put to believers, chansen. They don't hold the same premises you do, so those premises can't really be used when asking the question.
chansen
OK, from the perspective of
Posted on: 11/16/2010 16:21
OK, from the perspective of someone who does believe, then yes, the better way to phrase it is, "Why would a god need us to lower our standards for its sake?" It's a nice rhetorical question that neatly points out how, if we assume a god, that this god would prefer if we not use those mental faculties that we just assumed he gave us.
It also results in a more awkward segue to the "switching phone companies" line.
T. Rex
The existence of God cannot
Posted on: 11/16/2010 16:39
The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. That doesn't preclude or exclude evidential and logical arguments. During archaeological digs, we don't find 'proof' of the lives of past civilizations but rather the evidence that remains. We utilize arguments based on the data, observations and knowledge at hand, Some of my former colleagues are finding evidence of civilizations thought to be non-existent of relegated to the level of myth or legend. Here, we go on a 'God dig', if you will.
Since some posters on this thread deny any authority from the Biblical evidence, I will omit those and focus rather on the ‘logical’ arguments. You would encounter these in any introductory university level philosophy, religion, or philosophy of religion course. First, there is the ontological argument, which 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 which 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?
People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God. If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.
BTW, in all my digs I have never found any 'missing links'.
Panentheism
T rex nice outline - then
Posted on: 11/16/2010 16:57
T rex nice outline - then there is Hartshorne's ontological argument which is different than the traditional a none supernatural one. Then there is Whitehead's cosmological in Process and Reality.
Your first paragraph is nice for it resets the issue beyond the modernistic trap. The trap that even liberals fall into ( and I am part of the liberal theological tradition, having moved into postmodernism in Process Thought>)
chansen
T. Rex wrote: First, there is
Posted on: 11/16/2010 17:04
First, there is the ontological argument, which 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.
The ontological argument fails because it proposes that the idea of a thing is the same as that thing existing. Further, existence is not a given property of something that is perfect.
Sorry, but I have to cut this short and go sign the papers to sell my house. Suffice to say there are plenty of rebuttals to the other arguments listed, but I don't have the time to give you my take on them right now.
Azdgari
Perfection is meaningless
Posted on: 11/16/2010 18:36
Perfection is meaningless without reference to a purpose. A being that is perfect at promoting universal suffering cannot also be perfect at promoting universal happiness, for these purposes compete with each other. Part of being perfect at promoting universal suffering would entail not being perfect at promoting universal happiness.
Any attempt to invoke "perfection" without reference (explicit or implicit) to a goal, is an incomplete thought.
Beloved
iWonder@Cafe wrote: How do
Posted on: 11/16/2010 18:29
How do we know God exists? Or do we know at all? What do you think?
It is about faith . . . I cannot prove (or disprove) the existence of God . . . nor do I believe can anyone else. I can only believe in or have faith in that God does exist. For me personally, my belief is, and I have faith that, God exists.
Azdgari
"Proof" is generally not the
Posted on: 11/16/2010 18:37
"Proof" is generally not the standard we use to believe or disbelieve in anything in our lives. It's something that applies to abstract logic and mathematics.
Arminius
Azdgari wrote: The words
Posted on: 11/16/2010 21:11
The words "know", "God", and "exists" need to be defined in the OP's question to avoid ambiguity. Assuming, of course, that a meaningful conversation is the goal of the OP.
I too am a great fan of defining exactly what we mean when posting a topic.
If "knowing" is "experiential knowning" or "feeling," then most of human experience falls within that category. Little of what we experience, and don't doubt we experience, is not provable in a scientfic way. If "knowing" is scientific knowing only, then we don't know most of what we feel and experience. Does that mean that feelings don't "exist?" Or do they?
"God" is even fuzzier. At the broadest definition, God is the totality of everything, as one inseperable whole: a singularity in a unitive state of nonduality or synthesis. Quite a few scientists agree with that definition beause they assume the Principle of Complementarity to be the underlying cosmic principle, and that the universe which we analyze is therefore in an ultimate state of nonduality or synthesis. In other words, the cosmic analysis proves the cosmic synthesis truthful. And because synthesis is a mystery in analytical terms, and the cosmic synthesis is the ultimate mystery—the mystery of mysteries, if you will—it would not be wrong to call IT God.
Serena
I don;t that there is a God.
Posted on: 11/16/2010 20:45
I don;t that there is a God. I don't know that there is not a God. I have questions and I struggle.
Olivet_Sarah
I don't 'know' that God
Posted on: 11/16/2010 21:10
I don't 'know' that God exists in any material, right-before-my-eyes, if you were a loving Divinity you would do X and not do Y kind of way. I think that's why we refer to our relationship to religion as 'faith' and not 'knowledge'. I 'know' I cannot look around the world, or my life, etc. without feeling there is something Divine holding my hand, infusing all that is good in my world and giving me strength through the bad. Am I as close to 'knowing' as I can be without actually doing so? Of course - that's why I worship. And in that regard, if I could use the word 'know' without it being parsed, I 'know' there is a God because there is just too much happening in our world and universe to be 'coincidence'. And because I just feel it right to the core of my being, to the point of having no doubt of the existence of the Holy, even if my perception of it changes upon doubt and questioning. But if 'to know' means 'to possess imperical evidence of', then I'm afraid it's true, I have none.
SG
"How do we know God
Posted on: 11/16/2010 21:18
"How do we know God exists?"
I do not speak for we's, just me's.
How do I know? I don't. I don't know know. I know what I think, feel, believe... but do I know, for sure? No. I know what I experience. Could I be wrong? Yes, I am (last time I checked)human.
Can those who disagree know know? No. They can know what they think, feel, believe.... but they cannot know for sure. Could they be wrong? Yes, if they too are human.
I however do not feel I need to prove anything in relation to God.
Afterall, I cannot prove, measure, provide evidence of many things, like love. I believe in it, feel it, experience it, know it.
The sun actually does not rise or set, but we would say we saw it, experienced it, felt it...
abpenny
I really haven't felt the
Posted on: 11/16/2010 21:40
I really haven't felt the need to "know" one way or the other since about grade 10...the last time I spent trying to really figure it out. There are times that I am without a doubt and times that it seems wildly foolish to me.
I've come to expect and kind of enjoy both seasons.
waterfall
I like this C.S Lewis
Posted on: 11/16/2010 21:50
I like this C.S Lewis quote:
"Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men(and women) feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."
How many people deny that void and easily fill it with other things? It's very hard then to know you're missing anything, UNTIL you've experienced the joy of welcoming God's existence into your life.
IMHO
SG
abpenny, My grandfather
Posted on: 11/16/2010 22:15
abpenny,
My grandfather once said he did not believe in G-d. I was shocked. He explained that G-d was a concept people invented. I sat ready to crap my pants. Then, he said he believed in a thing, a power, a mystery, a higher state... in every person and G-d was the only way we seemed to get it.
I can, no matter the season, say I agree with him.
Azdgari
Waterfall, there is something
Posted on: 11/16/2010 22:23
Waterfall, there is something to fill that desire, within this world. That "something" is faith in another world - or some other faith with the same jist to it. The desire, as I understand it, is for the belief itself. And the belief certainly does exist.
That said, Lewis' basic premise is that we are born with the desire for something beyond this world. On what basis does he make this wild claim?
waterfall
I don't know Azdgari, but
Posted on: 11/16/2010 23:01
I don't know Azdgari, but perhaps as one gets older, faced with an illness, lonliness, etc....and the material things become insignificant, we start to assess the worthiness of accumulating stuff and we search for something that fulfils our hearts and not our hands.
Azdgari
That's something learned
Posted on: 11/16/2010 23:05
That's something learned then, isn't it? It's not something we're born with, if what you say is true. It's something that life in our world, as a human being, conditions into us.
Why, then, do you think that Lewis makes the claim he does?
A
How do we know 'love' exists?
Posted on: 11/16/2010 23:10
How do we know 'love' exists?
Where's the proof, the evidence that 'love' exists, the empirical proof? I'm really curious what you think.
(To me, "God" and "love" are the same, that's why I ask.)
waterfall
Azdgari wrote: That's
Posted on: 11/16/2010 23:12
That's something learned then, isn't it? It's not something we're born with, if what you say is true. It's something that life in our world, as a human being, conditions into us.
Why, then, do you think that Lewis makes the claim he does?
I didn't say it was something learned. I stated that we sometimes ignore the longing for that connection to the spiritual truths by occupying ourselves with the material. That "knowing" is either squelched or nurtured.
Mendalla
waterfall wrote: I didn't say
Posted on: 11/16/2010 23:31
I didn't say it was something learned. I stated that we sometimes ignore the longing for that connection to the spiritual truths by occupying ourselves with the material. That "knowing" is either squelched or nurtured.
I don't think that the satisfaction for longing for a deeper spiritual connection is automatically "God". I find it in my connection to the natural world, to the beauty and wonder of the Cosmos, and in my connections to other people. I don't squelch it by occupying myself with the material, but I don't find it in belief in conventional notions of God, either.
Mendalla
Azdgari
^^ Perhaps it is contentment
Posted on: 11/16/2010 23:42
^^ Perhaps it is contentment with the universe, for which we yearn? Certainly real paths exist to that. Myriad paths, and some of them traditionally religious. Doesn't help Lewis' argument, does it?
I didn't say it was something learned. I stated that we sometimes ignore the longing for that connection to the spiritual truths by occupying ourselves with the material. That "knowing" is either squelched or nurtured.
As Mendally says, the connection your speak of can exist whether or not the spiritual ideas really are truths. And the ideas certainly exist.
waterfall
Yes I realize many people
Posted on: 11/17/2010 07:24
Yes I realize many people associate God=Universe. or =nature, etc........and God is merely a cog in "his" own wheel.
But for me there exists an independence of God that does not rely on these things to exist.
abpenny
SG...yup.
Posted on: 11/17/2010 08:17
SG...yup.
Azdgari
Waterfall, it was not my
Posted on: 11/17/2010 10:02
Waterfall, it was not my intention to argue for or against a theological position, but only to comment on the disingenuous argument of C.S. Lewis that you have cited in this thread.
Could it be that Lewis is intentionally using false premises, because truth isn't his primary concern when making his argument?
airclean33
How do We know God
Posted on: 11/17/2010 10:38
How do We know God Exists?----Show me the Love you have for your wife or Husband-show me or draw me a pictor of the Love you have for your children.-- for your Brother -sister--Heres an easy one draw a pictor of the love you have for your pet.It's hard Does that mean you don't Love . For most I think not.There are many on wondercafe who have a good brain ,and are much smarter than me . But God is NOT in the Brain HE IS IN THE HEART.So Draw me a pictor of your LOVE ,AND I WILL SHOW YOU GOD
airclean33
Isa 43:1 But now
Posted on: 11/17/2010 10:48
Panentheism
Azdgari wrote: Perfection is
Posted on: 11/17/2010 11:23
Perfection is meaningless without reference to a purpose. A being that is perfect at promoting universal suffering cannot also be perfect at promoting universal happiness, for these purposes compete with each other. Part of being perfect at promoting universal suffering would entail not being perfect at promoting universal happiness.
Any attempt to invoke "perfection" without reference (explicit or implicit) to a goal, is an incomplete thought.
Correct then one goes to the actual argument - which is perfect in love - and perfect does also mean to each moment - that is in intention there is an aim toward love that is perfect ( contextual) to each moment - perfect in intentent and in relation to what is now. It is not perfect in the sense of substance nor static as in the greek ideal of perfection - unchanging and immutable. Perfect includes changing and mutable. It is always to the now out love.
The purpose is directed by love that is general and specific to each actual occasion of experience (WilliamJames)
Panentheism
chansen wrote: T. Rex
Posted on: 11/17/2010 11:25
First, there is the ontological argument, which 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.
The ontological argument fails because it proposes that the idea of a thing is the same as that thing existing. Further, existence is not a given property of something that is perfect.
Sorry, but I have to cut this short and go sign the papers to sell my house. Suffice to say there are plenty of rebuttals to the other arguments listed, but I don't have the time to give you my take on them right now.
Agreed to one form of the ontological argument... however, not all ontological arguments check out Charles Hartshorne which is in the above post.
waterfall
Azdgari wrote: Waterfall, it
Posted on: 11/17/2010 11:30
Waterfall, it was not my intention to argue for or against a theological position, but only to comment on the disingenuous argument of C.S. Lewis that you have cited in this thread.
Could it be that Lewis is intentionally using false premises, because truth isn't his primary concern when making his argument?
What part isn't true? That our basic needs are inherited and not learned?
Azdgari
There are a lot of shaky
Posted on: 11/17/2010 13:05
There are a lot of shaky assumptions in his argument, but the false one I am talking about is that the need in question is for the thing Lewis claims it's for - a need for a real supernatural realm, rather than just a need to believe in one.
Azdgari
Panentheism wrote: Correct
Posted on: 11/17/2010 13:12
Correct then one goes to the actual argument - which is perfect in love - and perfect does also mean to each moment - that is in intention there is an aim toward love that is perfect ( contextual) to each moment - perfect in intentent and in relation to what is now. It is not perfect in the sense of substance nor static as in the greek ideal of perfection - unchanging and immutable. Perfect includes changing and mutable. It is always to the now out love.
The purpose is directed by love that is general and specific to each actual occasion of experience (WilliamJames)
To which actual argument do you refer, Panentheism?
lover of all life
i don't think that anyone
Posted on: 11/17/2010 16:36
i don't think that anyone "knows" that god exists but can believe it with every fiber of their being, but that doesn't mean that they know it as fact. even with personal experiences that one may have, hearing god's voice or having a vision; this just means that they experienced something and they have an interputation of what it is they experienced or witnessed.
Xango
lover of all life wrote: i
Posted on: 11/17/2010 17:02
i don't think that anyone "knows" that god exists but can believe it with every fiber of their being, but that doesn't mean that they know it as fact. even with personal experiences that one may have, hearing god's voice or having a vision; this just means that they experienced something and they have an interputation of what it is they experienced or witnessed.
Lover, isn't this the same as what modern physics tell us about our experiencing of observing anything at all?
Panentheism
Both Abslem which is
Posted on: 11/17/2010 19:20
Both Abslem which is problematic and Lewis supernaturalism which is even more of problem and then Hartshorne's revision of the ontological argument. In other words Anselm does the orginial and then there problems in it. It is all around the issue of perfect - he is substance thinker. Hartshorne revises perfect.
You are correct in your post about reference to more than the statement -