Proofs for existence of God

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

As for your thought experiment, and barring the door to logic: as I’ve pointed out above, sometimes it’s worse to let logic in only to appropriate it to illegitimate ends and merely to prop up dogma. As well, logic itself can be used as a barrier to authentic experience. We can cling to a syllogism as a defence. Myself, I’m fairly addicted to logic, but I don’t consider it a problem. Put another way, other than pointing out its limitations, I don’t see any need to especially violate logic to experience faith and even to believe in a reality that other people would articulate as “God”.

Nice post, Devadatta.

lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by presser_kun

Thanks for your words. More for me to think about.

It's funny, you know?

I've fairly ranted and expounded my view as though it's a settled, accepted thing within me, when in reality it's very much in flux.

I believe in God. Really. I pray. I meditate.

But I also question. Part of me still wants to find a way to reconcile my logic with my faith. Another part wants to wash its hands of the whole mess. And a third part wants to lay it all down at the foot of the Cross, to use the evangelical terminology I grew up with, and trust in Jesus to "take care of things for me."

But I cannot seem to do any of these three things. It doesn't seem to me that that's because I'm indecisive.

*sigh*

I'm learning from everyone here, and am grateful for a forum where I can be heard, corrected, nudged, tolerated, and encouraged.

peace,

press

Hi presser kun. Seems to me that your honest wrestling with these questions is a healthy point of growth, not weak or indecisive. It takes a lot of courage to examine long held beliefs in the strong light of day and ask yourself what you really think about it all.

I don't think a person needs to compromise one's logic to attain faith, but at some point logic is going to fall short. The human mind (and, I believe, spirit) is an incredibly flexible thing and can accomodate logic in areas that apply to the world and faith in things that apply to the soul.

God is outside the realm of material proof. We can have personal confirmations, consolations, experiences of God or sometimes we can just choose to believe and live our lives accordingly, gaining the experiential (and personal) proof in the outcome of our lives. Without a personal experience of the Something More and if you want to be logical, in my opinion the only way to go is agnostic. There is no objective scientific proof for or against God. However, there is a real outcome in this life in choosing, or not, how you are going to set your sails.

If you choose a metaphysical belief system based purely on reason you can (and most likely ultimately will) reject it based reason. You can't get there just using your head.


cheers,
lunamoth

[earl]

Originally Posted by Devadatta

Hi Presser Kun. I have much sympathy with what you and Awaiting the Fifth had to say in your exchange above. I started a reply earlier but got too long-winded. I’ll try to be brief. (And not succeed!)

These logical proofs – ontological, from first cause, by design, etc. – are a mug’s game, as you know. Part of the problem is that we come from a tradition that finds the relation between logic and faith so problematic that it’s devoted centuries to unsuccessful logical proofs of the existence of the personal & monotheistic God. The Aristotelian-Thomistic system is the greatest monument to this preoccupation, using all the tools of Greek logic to demonstrate the existence of God while being ultimately based on faith from the beginning, in the middle and to the end! It’s good to keep in mind that this problematic is not universal. But it’s a clue to why so many of us still want to mis-use logic in this way.

On the other hand, I think we might do well to make a distinction here, between God in the full, ultimate sense, as ground of being, as godhead, and the personal God that acts in the world or is engaged in some fashion in the world. I think what you find is that God in the ultimate sense is no more and no less than reality, and doesn’t need nor will admit of proof. If you look at the most sophisticated views of God or ultimate reality, whether Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Neo-platonic, Gnostic, you’ll find what is in effect beyond description, and for that reason usually defined in negative terms. It’s there to be experienced by the wise, as the Buddha said, so it’s not a matter of proof and is no contradiction to science. In fact, the way of science is just one more set of languages and methods to explore our experience of the extraordinary & inconceivable thusness of reality. This is what that old saying refers to when it talks about one mountain but many paths to the summit.

The trouble starts with the descent down the mountain, from the impersonal godhead to ideas of a personal God or spirit acting in the world. So to connect the dots between godhead and the personal God you have theories of successive emanations – as with the Kabbalah, the Neo-Platonists and among some Indians – as well as incarnation, prophethood, etc. This is where things get really messy, where reason is most abused, and where unfortunate political and social fallout is most severe.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t give up on that troubled human realm of contradictory theologies. For one thing, they’re a fact of life. For another, these different theologies depend completely on the way we use them. They can cause damage or bring benefit, but at least they wrestle with the most significant human experiences, and in that sense are inescapable.

As for your thought experiment, and barring the door to logic: as I’ve pointed out above, sometimes it’s worse to let logic in only to appropriate it to illegitimate ends and merely to prop up dogma. As well, logic itself can be used as a barrier to authentic experience. We can cling to a syllogism as a defence. Myself, I’m fairly addicted to logic, but I don’t consider it a problem. Put another way, other than pointing out its limitations, I don’t see any need to especially violate logic to experience faith and even to believe in a reality that other people would articulate as “God”.

Wonderfully thought out/expressed post, Devadatta. So true about the return from the mountaintop, from the deep well of noble Silence, from the apophatic to the kataphatic. Good reason to speak of the Ultimate as ineffable. The only way the kataphatic can "speak for God," be the "Word made flesh", is if we return to that apophatic well of "I Am" often to replenish and ensure that the divine flows as best as possible through the relative, conventional reality of daily life. If we can manage that, than each form infused with the waters of Spirit can be a theophany, (Big "T" or little). Take care, Earl

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by Proph 1

How do you deny your own existence?

I don't. But don't expect me to prove I exist... because it would be somewhat difficult to do. Anything I do to prove it may be just another figment of your imagination...

[Proph 1]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

I don't. But don't expect me to prove I exist... because it would be somewhat difficult to do. Anything I do to prove it may be just another figment of your imagination...

I can prove I exist. Just ask!

[presser_kun]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Seems to me that your honest wrestling with these questions is a healthy point of growth, not weak or indecisive. It takes a lot of courage to examine long held beliefs in the strong light of day and ask yourself what you really think about it all.

Indeed. And thank you for saying so.

God is outside the realm of material proof. We can have personal confirmations, consolations, experiences of God

Which I have had --

or sometimes we can just choose to believe and live our lives accordingly, gaining the experiential (and personal) proof in the outcome of our lives.

Which I have done.

There is no objective scientific proof for or against God. However, there is a real outcome in this life in choosing, or not, how you are going to set your sails.

There's my problem: how to set my sails?

If you choose a metaphysical belief system based purely on reason you can (and most likely ultimately will) reject it based reason. You can't get there just using your head.

Right. You can't. Erm...I can't.

Wish I could just let go and let God, as they say. Used to do that, but find it (dare I say it?) unreasonable to do so any longer.

I pray, but more often meditate now. I practice Qigong, and gain much peace from it. Connecting to the divine within, as some voice it.

* * *

*blinks*

Wow. I've learned a lot here. Thanks to everyone who joined in and helped me -- even if that wasn't your goal or purpose. I'll continue thinking on these things, even as I figure out how to set my sails.

And, of course, listening to what you have to say.

peace,

press

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Proph 1

I can prove I exist. Just ask!

All I see is words in a piece of software.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Go on then Proph 1, I ask you to prove that you exist.

[Quahom1]

Hmm, you could try using the six degrees of Kevin Bacon concept...(Brian gave me the idea when he made his last post).

[Proph 1]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Go on then Proph 1, I ask you to prove that you exist.

Who shall I say is asking?

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

perhaps a figment of your imagination. . . ?

[InLove]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

I don't. But don't expect me to prove I exist... because it would be somewhat difficult to do. Anything I do to prove it may be just another figment of your imagination...

I just highlighted this one because I like it so much. I told my dad about this one. That old stubborn non-conformist Baptist liked it very much.

InPeace,
InLove

[Proph 1]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

perhaps a figment of your imagination. . . ?

Understand that just thinking requires existence. One cannot think if he does not exist. Still, we exist and ask "what is the sound of one hand clapping," or the proverbal question, "Who came first the chicken or the egg." Yet in all the awe of philosophical thinking, we forget the obvious:

"I think, therefore I am."

[InLove]

That would be Aquinas, right? But then there is "I AM". Interesting...

InPeace,
InLove

[Proph 1]

Originally Posted by InLove

That would be Aquinas, right? But then there is "I AM". Interesting...

InPeace,
InLove

Yes, I actually thought about him (I AM) while I wrote my last post. He's great...He's the best!