Evidence for God from Science

Ice: What you explained is a prayer - talking with God. I am doing it...

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Ice, I'd like to try and work with where you're at.

May I ask how you got to a conclusion that God even exists?
(especially given many Atheists believe there is no proof for God)

I expect it comes down the you seeing the logical necessity of such a being, given everything that we see or acknowledge exists. But, I'd prefer to not put words directly in your mouth.

IceMobster wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Ice, I'd like to try and work with where you're at.

May I ask how you got to a conclusion that God even exists?
(especially given many Atheists believe there is no proof for God)

I expect it comes down the you seeing the logical necessity of such a being, given everything that we see or acknowledge exists. But, I'd prefer to not put words directly in your mouth.

My conclusion that God exists partly comes from fallacies of atheism. The other part is the philosophy of Plato, Plotinus, Aristotle, and basically all of the philosophers before Socrates. All of them had a different approach to the One(calling it different names, giving it different attributes). Now the argument against is that all of them had their point of view on that "primary source"/ ἀρχή and so all of them are wrong which makes no sense if you ask me. Quite the contrary, all the different understandings of that ἀρχή (even today when looking at religions) point out that there is an "a priori" cognition of a Creator.

Now, I am just waiting for that sign. (what Philip described except I don't hear the knocking. At least not yet... Tell him to bang on that door harder, eh? )

• My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I com­paring this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: A fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.

Kurieuo wrote:

IceMobster wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Ice, I'd like to try and work with where you're at.

May I ask how you got to a conclusion that God even exists?
(especially given many Atheists believe there is no proof for God)

I expect it comes down the you seeing the logical necessity of such a being, given everything that we see or acknowledge exists. But, I'd prefer to not put words directly in your mouth.

My conclusion that God exists partly comes from fallacies of atheism. The other part is the philosophy of Plato, Plotinus, Aristotle, and basically all of the philosophers before Socrates. All of them had a different approach to the One(calling it different names, giving it different attributes). Now the argument against is that all of them had their point of view on that "primary source"/ ἀρχή and so all of them are wrong which makes no sense if you ask me. Quite the contrary, all the different understandings of that ἀρχή (even today when looking at religions) point out that there is an "a priori" cognition of a Creator.

Now, I am just waiting for that sign. (what Philip described except I don't hear the knocking. At least not yet... Tell him to bang on that door harder, eh? )

You mention God's attributes. What do you believe here?

So then, I'm interested in what foundational attributes you see God would necessarily possess?

One, Good, Truth(Aletheia), Wisdom, Being/Sufficiency/Independence -> as a result of this -> self-awareness, Love, Justice,...
All of the above is an absolute attribute but also the attribute itself because, otherwise, God would be either absolutely transcendent (unfathomable to humans) or equal to humans (if he was only the attribute itself).(<-- from this you can see the influence of Christianity(on me), and that makes the most sense. God which is both immensely transcendent yet really close.)
Actually, knowing this(the influence on me), I'm not sure if what I said in the black sentence is correct.

How do you claim He is really close if you haven't heard or seen Him? I guess I should resort to His attributes as being only absolute and not both absolute and the attribute itself.


Does it make sense to you how Theists identify God as having this and that attribute from what we see exists?
I'm not just referring to the material physical world, but also many immaterial things we often acknowledge and take for granted. Such as say, "justice" and concepts of what is good and fair.
I think I've already posed such a question in the "Does anyone deserve eternal hell" thread. I find it contrary for One Being to be both absolute Love and absolute Justice. I compared that to, if God is absolute Love, He wouldn't mind anyone who has grasped Him and did good deeds in life. However, if He is absolute Justice, noone but Christians would be saved.
So, if you say God is Love, then what is the point in being a Christian?
If you say God is Justice, why would you want to be in Heaven if 70+% of other people are in hell. What kind of God is that? Oh right, giving free will and stuff but He required from you to believe something written 2000 years ago, with no original and choose exactly that religion (Christianity) among 4200 others (as I've heard in some video), currently.


To take CS Lewis in Mere Christianity:

• My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I com­paring this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: A fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.

What you mention here is basically the argument: "How does one understand what is moral and what is not if there is no boundary, no moral vertical, no absolute moral and moral itself?"
Apply the same thing to justice.

However, concerning justice, I believe it is quite subjective. I will take an extreme example: justice for a Muslim terrorist would be that the infidels die. On the other side, justice, in the eyes of those "infidels" would be that those terrorists are put to jail or killed.
Moral and justice are pretty subjective. They depend of the time and culture they are in.
Before being certain I can say that -- I'd need to read the essay: https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/5640
I know that it is probably biased to server the secularism, but anyway...


You know, I'm sure we've all been quite emotionally affected by certain injustices we see in the world. Certain "evils" that we see performed. Desiring justice and what is right is just something many people don't blink twice on in assuming such concepts are really meaningful. Yet, if there is rightness, then such points to a source of righteousness. If there is good in the world, then a source of goodness. If there is meaning, then there is something thing gives meaning. If I see a ray of light, then it makes sense to believe a source exists for such light.

You know some Atheists are not at all surprised by such things, think concepts of injustice, fairness, equality, goodness, righteousness, morality and the like are all just apart of the fabric of reality without any real further reflection. It's quite a trick, how they hang their hat in mid-air. Like believing Sun rays exist in and of themselves without the Sun. Very elaborate some explanations, but ultimately I see their hat falls flat to the floor while they think it's still neatly hung. From how I read your words, you too seem to think so.
Yeah, exactly. The Augustin's theory of Illumination is more or less what you summarized here.

Kurieuo wrote:Ice,

So then, God for you has the extending attributes: Oneness, Goodness, Truthfulness, Wisdom, Being, Self-sufficiency, Conciousness, Love and possibly Justice (I'm not sure on "Justice" because you appear to believe such contradicts "Love", so one must be traded for the other -- although it seems part of you does think both can be embraced however hard they are to reconcile, and there's no denying I think such appear tricky to reconcile).
Haha, yeah, I know... I still don't get it how He can be both, but saying otherwise would negate His perfectness.
I've read the article by William Craig, it's a nice reading. The most useful sentence would be -- I may not like you (or what you are doing) but that doesn't mean I don't love you.
However, by denying the incarnation, I am ending in hell anyways, so, what does it matter?

Now God being the source of such, would mean that there can be none higher than God when it comes to such things. You know, a creature can't be higher than its creator. If the source of love is God, then the love we have can't be higher than God's really. Since in God, who is the source of love, does love get described. Kind of like Sun rays can't express more light than their source which is the Sun.

So then, I'd say, with these attributes, God is as maximally as possible each one. I think that you would agree with me that this reasoning is sound, right?
As I said, saying otherwise would be negating the perfectness.


This gives us a good picture of God to work with doesn't it? So now, our task is to scope the landscape of religions and belief systems out their which appear to align. We obviously quickly rule out any views of the world without God, since such cannot be logically sustained.

We can perhaps rule out Eastern mysticism like Buddhism which is more a philosophy, and Hinduism which tries to embrace God and gods and treat it all equal and as such just ends up being one big contradiction. We can also rule out polytheistic religions of medieval times or paganism since such can't be foundational.

So we quickly arrive that those religions which embrace a more united and personal-like God: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and all their spin-offs whether that's Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sunni, Shia, Catholicism, Protestants and the like.

Here we can identify religions at the broad spectrum, and then stripes within a particular religion that appear most "fitting" if you will with the logical concept of God we're reasoned to. I tell you, what Christ in the New Testament appears to represent seems to tick a great many boxes. Perhaps like you though, I am greatly influenced by Christianity, but then I can't just write it off because of that reason. If it "fits" the picture, then it "fits".

Now that is the approach I would encourage you to take. What seems more "fitting" with what we can logically reason about God. Rather then an empirical scientific approach which is really just the wrong method of enquiry. Surely, you don't believe the only way we can discover truth is via Positivism (which can't even prove itself)?

Kurieuo wrote:Re: Doctrine of Hell, I suppose that could present a dilemma for "fittingness". Such is complex, however I think it important to acknowledge within Christianity itself there are a myriad of positions. Some more or less loving than the other. This is like a secondary doctrinal issue to Christ Himself who is primary.

Here is a what I find to be a more Scriptural understanding of Hell (which I've heard is more Wesleyan in approach): http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 41#p188041

Then, did you catch my final reply in your Hell thread here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 30#p192404
I disagree with the fear part (Prov 1:7). You can not love what you fear of. You can't know what love truly is if you are afraid of it.
I'd say I'm much like unfaithful Thomas. In this life or the next one (when I die), if God proves me His incarnation through Christ, I'll wholeheartedly accept it.

I'd encourage you to have a read of both -- the first link, then the second.


In any case, if God is maximally good and loving, then I think you're right to see this a very real conundrum. Given people aren't entirely good and even hate (which antithetical to love) -- then how ought God handle such? God must be fair and those who do wrong, things need to be made right? That is, justice. Yet, then, how is this loving to the person receiving punishment. Such seems hard to reconcile.
Nah, main thing I point out here is that if someone's religion made more sense to him than any other religion (in this case Christianity, I guess), as far as God is concerned, that person is going to hell because that person denied Christ.


HOWEVER, at worst, this seems to be more of a puzzle or enigma, then something truly irreconcilable. Why do I say such? Because we do all tend to see that love and righteousness are both equally good things and so can be had. Our intuition tells us both can be had, so therefore we're missing something if we're unable to reconcile the two.
Probably.

Kurieuo wrote:Finally, you touched upon God's attributes, being absolute and not absolute. Well, I'd press you to consider a Divinely Simple view of God. Jac wrote a paper on such that many here found interesting. Under this, God cannot be divided, there are no parts, but everything is simplified to be just God. You know, kind of like rather than God explaining to Moses I am this, and I am that, which would in a way divide God as being this and that -- God just says, I AM WHO I AM. (<a target="_blank" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-version="nasb95" data-reference="Exod 3.14" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Exod%203.14" class="rtBibleRef">Exodus 3:14</a>)

Rather, I think what we call God's attributes, are just metaphors we see extended out of that Primary Source we call God. It's like we might call this sun ray Righteousness as it extends into our world and we perceive it, and another sun ray Lovingness as it too extends into our world and we perceive it -- yet they both extend from the same source which is just the Sun itself (i.e., God). Not that I wish to call Egypt's Ra God or the like , evidently I'm just utilising analogy.

Jac and I discuss such here, amongst other topics: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 47#p191990 (I'd highly recommend reading our exchanges and would be interested in your own thoughts if you have any)


PS. I'm not often aware of where my thoughts and reasoning lie in relation to this or that thinker, however often I'm told that's so Aquinas, or Aristotelian, Augustinian, Wesleyan, Calvinistic or the like. Just shows to me that no one owns logic and reasoning, given that people can arrive at the same conclusions following the same logical trails.
Exactly. Which is why, yet again, I don't understand why would someone end up in hell for denying Christ. People take different approach towards that Primary Source. Some split it to many gods, others think god is in everyone (pantheism), etc. etc.
So if you see similarities or correlations to this or that thinker, it's great because if means you can probably understand my reasoning much more clearly. You'll probably have insights I don't have, so I do like hearing that's like Augustine's Illumination or the like. Gives me something to look into.
Likewise, bro.