There are plenty of people who will say, “I don’t believe in G-d”, followed by “Show me the proof." Well….the answer to the question, "Is There Proof of G-d?", really depends on your perception. Sounds like a cop out, doesn’t it? But it’s true. How willing are you to look at evidence without giving credence to your prejudice? It’s hard. It all depends on how close you are to G-d. The closer you are to G-d, the more he reveals himself to you. In contrast, the further away, the evidence looks like a believers wild imagination.
In conclusion, we can try to show our perceptual evidence to those who don’t know G-d but chances are, they will turn a deaf ear or blind eye. In reality, we can not prove G-d to others because there is no concrete evidence. It doesn’t help when most of the evidence resides within the Word of G-d, and you can’t honestly perceive it correctly unless you have first received the gift of the Holy Spirit. We can just share what he’s done for us and let the Spirit of G-d take it from there. Keep being that lighthouse.
One of the hardest things in life, is to have a gift to give and realizing not everyone wants it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So true brother...so true.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right. There is a lot of truth to shaking the dust off of our sandals sometimes, as I am finding out. God needs to do the saving and we are merely the instruments...but never give up. Be ready in season and out of season :)
ReplyDeleteThanks for being uplifting and encouraging!
Your brother
Dan
I know it's heartbreaking when it appears that you make no headway. One of the hardest things is to put so much into witnessing and not reap any apparent benefit.
ReplyDeleteSometimes we just have to be satisfied to be stepping stones for G-d and hope he will bring it home.
Keep up the fight my brother,
Keith
It's true, even with evidence it's still not enough. When G-d lived on earth as a man he said if you have seen me you have seen my Father. Jesus clearly said he was G-d and proved that to thousands throughout his ministry. Some of the most intelligent people of that time knew him but still rejected him. Correct me if i am wrong but i think it was Paul that said even seeing these things you have not believed. The evidence of G-d was living right in front of us and turned the whole world upside down showing himself as G-d. Now we are the evidence and people are still seeing but not believing.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, ND, I readily admit that there may be a god, but I just as readily deny that there is the Christian god. Insofar as there is no evidence of any god whatsoever, the fact that the Christian god is logically impossible -- given the attributes assigned to it and the doctrines it is said to espouse -- is more than sufficient to disprove that sort of a god.
ReplyDeleteSure, there may be a god, but clearly certain kinds of gods are impossible, and the one Christians generally describe is one of them.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI am surprised you think the Christian God is logically impossible.
NE way for what it is worth, another view is held (not by me...although I would look into it) that God does not "know" the future but makes the future (like when He prophecies that he will do something). A passages suggests this kind of thing. For example when God came down to see sodom and gommorah, the wording seems to suggest that God came to check it out :)... kind of like...God is everywhere He wants to be...which could be everywhere :)
I don't know. Be ready to admit that we could be wrong, act upon the best answer...seek the truth.
The Bible makes the most sense to me in explaining our world around us...who made it and why it is here and why it is the way it is. we have already been talking about that :)
cheers,
DB
Hey Stan,
ReplyDeleteI know you have stated some of these attributes on Dan's blog, but could you elaborate more on those and others?
The reason why I ask is that I find what some people believe that G-d is one way while we believe in a totally different one. Basically, I would like to see if we are talking about the same G-d.
Thanks,
Keith
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"I don't know. Be ready to admit that we could be wrong, act upon the best answer...seek the truth."
Thanks Dan. That's what we believers should be like. Take it all in, throw out the garbage, and keep the truth. Sounds like Acts 17:11, The New Zealand way. ;-)
Shalom,
Keith
[C]ould you elaborate more on [the attributes of god]?
ReplyDelete...
I would like to see if we are talking about the same G-d.
To be fair, we are not talking about the same god, since to you, it exists, and to me, it does not. That being said, the attributes and doctrines that the Christian god is alleged to possess or espouse, which result in a logical contradiction, are as follow:
1. Omniscience
2. Maximal benevolence (a.k.a. "omnibenevolence")
3. Non-zero creative power
4. "First Cause" status
5a. A provision for the existence of evil
5b. A populated hell (of eternal torment)
Note that omnipotence is unnecessary, though not excluded.
Clearly, the Christian god is alleged to have various other properties or attributes than these, and clearly there are various doctrines attached to its persona as well, but none of these is needed in my argument, which therefore tackles not just Christian gods fitting this minimal description, but the gods of other similar Theisms as well.
In fairness to myself, Da Bomb, and other lurkers at his blog, however, I feel it best if interested parties here go there, with perhaps a quick visit to the relevant topic on my pathetic blog, and direct further comments or inquiries to Da Bomb's comment section, where much of this has been discussed already.
If nothing else, I've repeated myself enough for Da Bomb -- I'd rather not do so in multiple places, if I can help it.
:)
--
Stan
First of all technically it is the same God since there is only one God. Just because someone doesn’t believe in Him doesn’t make Him unreal. There is a reality one day that some are going to face about denying Him. But that is a different posting.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that is used against Him is just another demonic wool pulled over a misguided sheep’s eyes. I find these same words over and over again on websites that are ran or supported by atheists. I am surprised you didn’t use the word ontology.
Most atheists are highly intellectual and try to prove the nonexistence of God by using some elaborate no-win scenario and stake a claim that since the problem is unsolvable then God must not in essence exist. Such as: Can God create a rock He can't lift?" If He is all powerful then He can create anything but if he is all powerful then why can't He lift the rock. And since He can’t do both then He can’t do either one, therefore He must not even exist. That is first of all unanswerable being that we are incapable of comprehending that whole situation with the pathetic minds that we have. Yes, we all have pathetic minds or we would all have solved all of the world’s problems by now. Secondly, it proves nothing because we are basing that type of question on the physical world and God is not physical, per se. The point is just because it sounds intellectually sound does not mean that it is universally correct.
What most people have to remember is we are all at different steps in our faith. Some are at the lowest rung of the ladder, while most are a little higher. With each step on the ladder comes a different understanding of who God is and a closer relationship with Him. Some unfortunately will never take a higher step. While others step off the ladder and create their own ladder. But the problem is since most of us are on the lower steps of the ladder they are not prepared to take a stand against those on a different ladder who have taken many steps to reach their own height. And the intellectual becomes “victorious” and stakes a higher claim that since they “win” an argument then apparently God has been proven to not be real even more.
I have read some of the postings that were mentioned. I actually have seen more than were posted and they all do the same thing I have already mentioned. The reality is God can be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent without being contradictive. The term omnibenevolent, I seriously don’t quite understand. God is all-good? Yes. God is good for all? Yes. God uses everything for the good of the people? Not quite. Romans 8:28, And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him. Now is that contradictory of being an all-loving God? No. And if you don’t understand that then you are at the lower end of the ladder. And that is okay. That just proves that we can not completely understand the magnificence of the true essence of God.
And for now, the comeback will be something that will try and prove I am wrong with some other intellectual circle of garble, some kobyahsimaru for all of you Star Trek fans. Because for now, the atheist will not understand God. 1 Corinthians 2:14, The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. They are foolish because they are trying to use their mind and the physical world to explain a being beyond our realm of existence, a creator that can not be held by our mere 3 dimensional space.
ReplyDeleteThese thoughts are mine. Which is another difference. Usually, you can Google almost everything the atheist says and can find someone, somewhere in time that says the exact same thing. It seems even though most are intellectuals, can’t think for themselves.
Now the choices are 1) Agree with me and prove I am right, 2) Disagree with me but have to come up with some other intellectual way of trying to prove the non existence of God (which proves me anyway) 3) Walk away from the argument but ego will not let that happen for the intellectual who prides himself on being correct, 4) Or…become open minded and maybe allow God to intervene in your life.
I pray that the option of #4 is the step.
Just because someone doesn’t believe in Him doesn’t make Him unreal.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Baal, in whom disbelief is warranted, I suppose? Special pleading much?
Most atheists are highly intellectual and try to prove the nonexistence of God by using some elaborate no-win scenario...
My scenario is hardly elaborate, and while it is a modified form of the PoE, it is quite informative, if you look at the attributes you allege god to have, and follow the logic where it leads. Certainly, it is not a logical absurdity such as the 'rock he couldn't lift' nonsense.
I have read some of the postings that were mentioned.
Then why didn't you post your response where the actual discussion is taking place?
The reality is God can be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent without being contradictive.
Omnipresence is implied in omniscience, but even so, I do not deny that an omniscient and omnipotent god could exist. Wait -- why did you leave off the other necessary attributes...?
The term omnibenevolent, I seriously don’t quite understand. God is all-good? Yes. God is good for all? Yes.
Ah, I see. You're not trying to add to the discussion, you're preaching to your peers who may be shaken by my argument, if it is allowed to continue. I get it.
And if you don’t understand that then you are at the lower end of the ladder.
Oooh! An appeal to hidden wisdom, with an implication of appeal to authority. I haven't seen one of those in a while.
That just proves that we can not completely understand the magnificence of the true essence of God.
Um. No. It demonstrates that if there is a god, it is beyond our understanding, but it does not demonstrate that there is a god, and instead makes it less likely that this be the case, due to the logical incoherence my argument demonstrates.
...some [Kobayashi Maru] for all of you Star Trek fans.
Khaaaaaannn!
Usually, you can Google almost everything the atheist says and can find someone, somewhere in time that says the exact same thing. It seems even though most are intellectuals, can’t think for themselves.
Now that is funny. Talk about getting it exactly backward. Aside from the actual ancient originals (Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm, etc.), I've not once seen a new argument from an apologist. I'll grant you that we are all rehashing ancient thought, and I'm the first to admit that my argument is essentially the PoE, but modified to become the Problem of Creation -- which is still not especially new.
For all of this, though, I love the blatant dare you left in your closing remarks -- this despite the fact that I specifically requested that interested parties contribute at the original thread, including the same request on my own pathetic blog. The fact that you have not done so suggests either that you're too lazy to read the entire post, you're incapable of comprehending that aspect of the post, or you're intentionally splitting the thread in possible hopes that I ignore your goading.
Aside from this, I choose to ignore you. If you really care to engage, honor the request. If not, continue to pretend that you're superior by boasting of your "victory" here. I'll stick around here, and contribute to new topics as appropriate, but as for this topic, the other thread is much further along its ladder. You may ascend it, or up yours.
--
Stan
Wow, I guess I should have included a 5th option; 2 of the above (2 and with a hint of 3), which proves me right anyway, so God must exist. I can’t do italics so I left your stuff in quotes.
ReplyDelete“Unlike Baal, in whom disbelief is warranted, I suppose? Special pleading much?”
No actually, Baal as a persona, definition, or even a figure is very real. It’s called satanic ritual masked as religion. Is he the true God? No way.
“My scenario is hardly elaborate, and while it is a modified form of the PoE, it is quite informative, if you look at the attributes you allege god to have, and follow the logic where it leads. Certainly, it is not a logical absurdity such as the 'rock he couldn't lift' nonsense.”
First of all I said most atheists were intellectuals and/or used elaborate no win scenarios. I most certainly did not say all of them. And I agree the rock scenario is nonsense, but I already concluded that previously. But, the attributes I give to God leads to complete common sense, which in turn is more pure logic than “logic” itself. Common sense tells me there is a God and then my faith takes over. Science can even help fill in the blanks.
“Then why didn't you post your response where the actual discussion is taking place?”
Many times I do. It all depends which ones tickle my fancy. This one did. Or someone has already said what I feel. This one didn’t.
“Omnipresence is implied in omniscience, but even so, I do not deny that an omniscient and omnipotent god could exist. Wait -- why did you leave off the other necessary attributes...?”
Ask me one at a time. Because one thing atheists do is try and ask so many questions at once that the issue becomes confusing. And then when one piece of the pie wasn’t chewed on they jump all over that situation. Sort of like what was done there. I didn’t mention any of the other attributes because that wasn’t my goal. I can go with them one at a time. That’s fine.
“Ah, I see. You're not trying to add to the discussion, you're preaching to your peers who may be shaken by my argument, if it is allowed to continue. I get it.”
Wow. My secret is out.
“Oooh! An appeal to hidden wisdom, with an implication of appeal to authority. I haven't seen one of those in a while.”
The ladder was just an analogy. (it wasn’t really about a ladder)
“Khaaaaaannn!”
Loved it! “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or in this case, the one…”
“Now that is funny. Talk about getting it exactly backward. Aside from the actual ancient originals (Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm, etc.), I've not once seen a new argument from an apologist. I'll grant you that we are all rehashing ancient thought, and I'm the first to admit that my argument is essentially the PoE, but modified to become the Problem of Creation -- which is still not especially new.”
I am not an Apologetic. I don’t need to prove God. I am also not apologetic. I stand up for God. However, you are 100% accurate here. This is the oldest argument because God has always been here and when evil came into existence the other side of the argument started.
Continued…
ReplyDelete“For all of this, though, I love the blatant dare you left in your closing remarks -- this despite the fact that I specifically requested that interested parties contribute at the original thread, including the same request on my own pathetic blog. The fact that you have not done so suggests either that you're too lazy to read the entire post, you're incapable of comprehending that aspect of the post, or you're intentionally splitting the thread in possible hopes that I ignore your goading.”
. I took time to read your stuff and some of the places that you actually went to. One was just named Stan and said same stuff you have at other places. I assumed it was you. I wanted you to make a decision because I don’t understand why you have chosen as your life mission to try and go around to Christian sites/blogs (whatever) and try to prove them wrong. Why do that? Before you ask…if someone says something about my wife, I stand up for her. When someone says something against my God, that is a higher offense. I don’t need to defend, but I will. But you? What offends you about God? Does your mind get offended? Does your intellect? You see when someone says something about my wife, they offend my heart. When someone says something about my God they offend my spirit. But it seems like when someone says something about atheism, all it really does is offend their thoughts. To me, offend my thoughts so what. Offend my body, big deal. But I guard my heart and spirit. I can lose my mind. I can lose parts of my body. But if I lose my heart or spirit, then I have nothing. So why do you feel the need to do what you do?
“Aside from this, I choose to ignore you. If you really care to engage, honor the request. If not, continue to pretend that you're superior by boasting of your "victory" here. I'll stick around here, and contribute to new topics as appropriate, but as for this topic, the other thread is much further along its ladder. You may ascend it, or up yours.”
First, you have already proved that you will not ignore me. Your intellect will not let you do so. That is fine. I am not in it to win. I have already won since I accept Jesus Christ. My battle is not with you. So, to all (and you can quote me) I DID NOT WIN ANY ARGUMENT. And it doesn’t bug me. And I appreciate your kind closing remarks. One day I will ascend, but I will leave the last 3 words alone.
One big question though…how do you get italics in your posts? I can’t seem to do it.
PS. Now that we got out the aggression, if we discuss some more stuff, I will try and keep to better tone. In any case, I hope you find your answers in life and that your dreams are achieved.
To utilize italics, type as follows:
ReplyDelete<i>text you want to be italicized</i>
To utilize bold, replace the "i" with "b" above. Underlined text is evidently not allowed.
To create a hyperlink, type as follows:
<a href="http://www.google.com">Text to represent the link</a>
Also, there was a bug with Blogger, which may or may not have been corrected, which deleted whitespace (e.g. spacing, returns, tabs) following a tag. To avoid this, type the following where whitespace is intended to follow a tag:
Example: After this italicized text, a space should appear before this bold text.
As typed: <i>After this italicized text, a space should appear</i> <b>before this bold text</b>.
See you in DB's thread, if it tickles your fancy, or if it didn't -- you said both.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteYou are a sold out believer. That is not an insult. You are quite adept in conveying your beliefs even thougn I don't agree with them. It does appear that you have a anger issue though. Correct me if I'm wrong. Why do you respond angerily to contrary opinions?
Thank you Stan. This will help out in the future. I just couldn't figure it out. I tried typing it out on MS Word and then copying and pasting but it never worked. I appreciate this. I have been to DaBombs site. So maybe I will see you there. Again, I hope some good dialogue can come through and not what usually happens at some of these sites.
ReplyDeletePS. You will not see me on any atheists sites. I go there to read and learn about people but not to comment. If they want to share their own ideas on their own site then I do not comment to them. I go to Christian sites also to learn but that is where I do my dialogues.
ReplyDelete