[cadillac59]

The theoretical proofs for the existence of God fall into three categories. Firstly, the ontological type which tries to prove the existence of God from the idea of a necessary being. Secondly, are the cosmological type arguments which argue from the nature of the world in general to the necessity of God's existence. The First Cause argument being one of these. Thirdly,we can look at the teleological type of of arguments which argue from the nature of specific things such as design and purpose. This of course suggests that such things require a creator.

If you are interested all of these arguments can be look up in greater detail . I hope this is of some help.

All these arguments for the existence of god get you, at best, to deism-- the belief in a first cause. But that's it. And that's not really proving very much. Saying that a god or gods might exist does nothing to get you to where most people want to go with this, and that is to theism, and in particular, their special brand of theism. They want a god that intervenes, that cares about them and tells them what to do. The arguments you referenced do nothing to advance theism specifically.

[TUT317]

Not all of these arguments are first cause arguments. The ontological arguments tries to prove the existence of God from the definition of a supreme being. No knowledge about the physical world is necessary or employed in this type of argument. It is an apriori (prior to experience) demonstration.

First cause arguments (referred to by Cadillac 59) are of the cosmological type and these type of arguments promote theism. e.g. arguments from design. I think that these types of arguments hold the most promise. At the moment there doesn't appear to be enough observable evidence to say that God is the first cause. I believe the reason for this is because of what we observe and the way we observe things. I am also of the opinion that some time in the future this will change. By this I mean that tools for measuring physical phenomenon will promote a different way of observing nature, especially in relation to the very tiny( atoms, strings and other dimensions) I believe that in the future we will have a more tangible understanding of God. I have no evidence to back up my theory it is what I believe will happen.

[Maggie 3]

It is a choice to believe in God, whem we choose Him, He makes Himself known to us.

Maggie 3

[arcura]

Maggie 3
Yes, belief in God is our choice.
God has chosen all of us though salvation of His Son.
As far as I'm concerned both first cause and intelligent design are proofs of God.
Something brought the universe into existence and that something had to be of great power and wisdom.
The vast complexity of the universe and all that is in it is far far beyond the ability of chance even in trillions of years.
That is evident in just the complex design of the trillions of life forms on this planet.
Quantum physic and mechanics are proving all of that today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[cadillac59]

Maggie 3
Yes, belief in God is our choice.
God has chosen all of us though salvation of His Son.
As far as I'm concerned both first cause and intelligent design are proofs of God.
Something brought the universe into existence and that something had to be of great power and wisdom.
The vast complexity of the universe and all that is in it is far far beyond the ability of chance even in trillions of years.
That is evident in just the complex design of the trillions of life forms on this planet.
Quantum physic and mechanics are proving all of that today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

But wait a minute Fred. All that, at best, gets you to deism, not theism let alone Christianity. And the first cause argument? You can't be serious! Come on. Who made god? Like Bertrand Russell said of the argument that it was like the Hindu who said the world rested on the back of an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Hindu said, 'Suppose we change the subject.' I mean, it's hilarious.

[paraclete]

I mean, it's hilarious.

What's hilarious is you don't know your arse from your apex. Do you really think that those of us who believe in God do so without actually having something to base our belief on and I'm not talking about the Bible? When we say God reveals himself to us, we are serious. There is that inexplicable something, that event that takes place that is out of the ordinary, and even beyond that, the awesome presence of God. The universe reveals the greatness of God to us, such complexity, and even the creatures on this planet, just incredible, and it could not happen by chance. Open your eyes, open your spirit, open your mind

[TUT317]

Bertrand Russell said of the argument that it was like the Hindu who said the world rested on the back of an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Hindu said, 'Suppose we change the subject.'

I thought he said that it was tortoises all the way down, or was that someone else? Anyway...
I want to address the problem of, 'First Cause' and 'Intelligent Design' As far as first cause is concerned we need to get over the problem that every event must have a cause, as far as anyone knows we only have the world of sense experience to base our knowledge on. In other words, we don't know that cause and effect applies to anything beyond the material world.

There are of course other problems which I won't outline at the moment. The more interesting aspect lies in the area of intelligent design.
As far as the idea of 'Intelligent Design' is concerned I think it tends to blunder in too quickly to fill in the gap between what we know now and what we might discover in the future. As I said in my earlier statement we will have better methods of observation and better tools for investigating nature in the future. Yes, there is a gap in scientific knowledge but it's all too easy to fill the gap with an,'intelligent designer'. Rather than doing the hard work in advancing scientific knowledge.

To put this another way, intelligent design answers all of our outstanding questions about nature by means of a 'Designer' Unfortunately the answers provided are unverifiable at best.

This brings me to my last point that I made in my earlier entry. I suggested that Kant was our best bet at the moment for a synthesis of science and religion. Kant is of the opinion that science has the job of investigating nature while religion should speculate about nature. Speculating or philosophizing about nature from a religious point of view is an important job and this can and has lead to the advancement in science. This is exactly what I see happening in this forum. However, we need to be careful not to claim that our knowledge is proven beyond doubt; it may well be in the future, but not at the moment. Not even scientific knowledge is beyond doubt.

[cadillac59]

What's hilarious is you don't know your arse from your apex. do you really think that those of us who believe in God do so without actually having something to base our belief on and I'm not talking about the Bible? When we say God reveals himself to us, we are serious. there is that inexplicable something, that event that takes place that is out of the ordinary, and even beyond that, the awesome presence of God. the universe reveals the greatness of God to us, such complexity, and even the creatures on this planet, just incredable, and it could not happen by chance. Open your eyes, open your spirit, open your mind

Ok, you base your belief in god on some warm fuzzy feeling in your heart. Is that it? Brilliant.
Or as you said perhaps it's that odd experience you cannot explain and reason, "The odds are against it, so it's got to be god [of course my version of god].. " I've heard that one before.

I get the feeling if we pursue this line of reasoning at some point you are going to say, "Suppose we change the subject." :)

Oh, and one other thing I have to leave you with. One of my favorite Bertrand Russell quotes addressing your comments about the amazing complexity of the world and how incredible the universe is:

"If you were granted omniscience, omnipotence and millions upon millions of years in which to perfect your world, do you think the best you could come up with would be the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan?"

That's hilarious too.

[Alty]

do you really think that those of us who believe in God do so without actually having something to base our belief on and I'm not talking about the Bible?

Speak for yourself. I believe in God but not the bible and there are many other people
Out there just like me.

Do you even know the beliefs of Deism, or are you just too afraid to look at what other
People believe?

The bible isn't the only thing that leads to belief. In fact, despite the bible I still believe
In God, but trust me, he's way too busy to concern himself with the little ant farm he built.

[cadillac59]

Speak for yourself. I believe in God but not the bible and there are many other people
out there just like me.

Do you even know the beliefs of Deism, or are you just too afraid to look at what other
people believe?

The bible isn't the only thing that leads to belief. In fact, despite the bible I still believe
in God, but trust me, he's way too busy to concern himself with the little ant farm he built.

I actually thought deism might make some sense and might be the way to go. Now that kind of works. In fact, the very best that theists come up with in their line of reasoning and argumentation only gets them to deism, which is not really what they are shooting for (and some of their arguments aren't bad). But deism is not really a religion, is it? It's just the notion of an impersonal god or force in the universe that did it all and doesn't intervene in human affairs (and as to the non-intervention part there seems to be a lot of evidence for that).

Is that your belief, deism?

[paraclete]

Speak for yourself. I believe in God but not the bible and there are many other people
out there just like me.

Do you even know the beliefs of Deism, or are you just too afraid to look at what other
people believe?

The bible isn't the only thing that leads to belief. In fact, despite the bible I still believe
in God, but trust me, he's way too busy to concern himself with the little ant farm he built.

Do you have a problem with english comprehension? Didn't I say my beliefs weren't necessarily based on the Bible or were you responding to someoneelse and just happened to copy part of my reply

[KISS]

This Star Trek Episode http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Mourns_for_Adonais%3F has always made me wonder.

Was God an alien life form that landed on Earth with special "powers"? Did civilization worship him because civilization wasn't ready for contact with aliens?

So, he can exist?

The Catholic Church has things like "seated at the right hand of the Father". Is that supposed to make any sense?

When I hear that Jesus is born to a Virgin mother Mary, I think of this movie/book; Demon Seed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Makes you wonder, right?

[Gumbee]

Everyone eventually questions the existence of god weither they aaddmit it or not, what your doing is normal. People have been questioning the existence of god for centuries. So just keep believing in what you believe in.

[Alty]

I actually thought deism might make some sense and might be the way to go. Now that kind of works. In fact, the very best that theists come up with in their line of reasoning and argumentation only gets them to deism, which is not really what they are shooting for (and some of their arguments aren't bad). But deism is not really a religion, is it? It's just the notion of an impersonal god or force in the universe that did it all and doesn't intervene in human affairs (and as to the non-intervention part there seems to be a lot of evidence for that).

Is that your belief, deism?

Yes, I am a Deist.

There is not Deist "religion" because Deists don't believe in organized religion.

Basically Deism is going back to our roots, believing that yes, there is a "God" but not one that interferes with our lives or rules over his "creation".

I believe that God did create the world but science had a big hand in it as well. Where God left off, science took over, the rest is history.

I'm comfortable with my beliefs, I didn't choose blindly, I did a lot of research and years of study before I came to this conclusion.

I don't have a problem with others beliefs, be they Christians, Atheists, Jews, whatever, I just don't like someone trying to convert my beliefs because they think they're right. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know 100% that my beliefs are true, but then, no one else can make that claim either. :)

[cadillac59]

Yes, I am a Deist.

There is not Deist "religion" because Deists don't believe in organized religion.

Basically Deism is going back to our roots, believing that yes, there is a "God" but not one that interferes with our lives or rules over his "creation".

I believe that God did create the world but science had a big hand in it as well. Where God left off, science took over, the rest is history.

I'm comfortable with my beliefs, I didn't choose blindly, I did a lot of research and years of study before I came to this conclusion.

I don't have a problem with others beliefs, be they Christians, Atheists, Jews, whatever, I just don't like someone trying to convert my beliefs because they think they're right. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know 100% that my beliefs are true, but then, no one else can make that claim either. :)

I like your comments and in fact they seem to mirror what I've been thinking lately myself.

I come from a Lutheran background (the liberal branch of Lutheranism at that) and even being gay it seemed to work for me since Lutherans have what they call a "reconciling in Christ" ministry which actively seeks to bring gays and lesbians who feel betrayed by their faith back into the fold. So it's far easier being gay and Lutheran than say being gay and Catholic. But it's not perfect of course.

I agree with you too about those seeking converts. I'm unconcerned with what other people believe as long as they do not seek to use their preachments to encroach upon my freedoms and as long as they keep me out of it.

[Alty]

I like your comments and in fact they seem to mirror what I've been thinking lately myself.

I come from a Lutheran background (the liberal branch of Lutheranism at that) and even being gay it seemed to work for me since Lutherans have what they call a "reconciling in Christ" ministry which actively seeks to bring gays and lesbians who feel betrayed by their faith back into the fold. So it's far easier being gay and Lutheran than say being gay and Catholic. But it's not perfect of course.

I agree with you too about those seeking converts. I'm unconcerned with what other people believe as long as they do not seek to use their preachments to encroach upon my freedoms and as long as they keep me out of it.

I was raised Lutheran as well but went to a Catholic school for 10 years.

My parents were pretty relaxed Lutherans, church for Easter and Christmas and every once and a while when my mom felt like it.

My father was raised Catholic but the Catholic church wouldn't marry my parents unless my mother converted. The Lutheran church didn't mind if my mom married a Catholic, so they married there instead.

Not many people know about Deism, they just reference it when talking about the founding fathers, which contrary to some beliefs were mainly Deists.

I actually didn't know about it until Cred (an old member of AMHD, now banned) told me that my beliefs were exactly the same as a Deists. I did some research and found out that yes, I am a Deist. And here I thought I was unique all these years. ;)

[JoeT777]

It seems to me that the Op wants objective evidence to prove the existence of God? That’s a tough order. I got news, nobody can do it. How do you pick up a spiritual, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being and place him in your hands? You don’t believe in pixies, which we all know can’t be measured because they don’t exist. So, by extension, you surmise God doesn’t exist; after all, He can’t be measured, found, scaled, touched, or understood? But, how are you going to measure God? Are you going to measure Him to see if He meets your satisfaction?

St. Augustine says it can't be done; “But God cannot be said to have measure, lest He should seem to be spoken of as limited. Yet He is not immoderate by whom measure is bestowed upon all things, so that they may in any measure exist. Nor again ought God to be called measured, as if He received measure from any one. But if we say that He is the highest measure, by chance we say something; if indeed in speaking of the highest measure we mean the highest good. For every measure in so far as it is a measure is good; whence nothing can be called measured, modest, modified, without praise, although in another sense we use measure for limit, and speak of no measure where there is no limit, which is sometimes said with praise as when it is said: "And of His kingdom there shall be no limit." Luke 1:33 For it might also be said, "There shall be no measure," so that measure might be used in the sense of limit; for He who reigns in no measure, assuredly does not reign at all.”

It seems to me that a good allegory addressing the Op is that of 'The Watch'. A contemplative Watch is convinced there is no Watchmaker. How does he know? Well, he asked to hear the Maker's ‘tic’; he wanted to hear how fine the Maker's works are. He got no response. He asked the Maker to see the time to measure how accurate the good maker is. He got no response. The Watch didn't have the wherewithal to know that the Maker didn't give him ears with which to hear the Maker’s tic, only hands. Likewise, the Maker didn’t build a face with eyes with which the Watch could see the Maker’s time, only a wildly sweeping hand. Thus, the Watch concluded that he made himself, and he was good. Of course the Watchmaker could only laugh, he knew that the Watch only needed to look at the superiority of his interior workings.

Even still, there is a way to come to know God, through our experiences, some objective, and others subjective. St. Thomas does illustrate a postpriori knowledge of God that can add to our understating of the cosmos. It’s actually simple;

1) Every body in motion was moved by a force from an unmovable being. By extending this we argue that universe was placed in motion by God. Can you provide an alternative?

2) Likewise, everything that can be conceived has an efficient cause. There is a finite order of efficient causes. God is that being for whom there is no efficient cause; which we call the first efficient cause.

3) ) At some point in time there was nothing in existence; as all things come into existence over time. Without a creator who existed in the beginning this becomes absurd. Therefore, we can conclude that the existence of God is of itself its own necessity and not proceeding from another things necessity

4) The measured perfections of existence in the universe can only be understood in comparison with a real and absolute being as a standard, i.e., an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God.

5) The perfect order of our existence in nature is evidence of creation by a designer who directs all natural things to their end, of whom we call God.

Notwithstanding your ideology, in all things, what God makes are good. No doubt, you’ve enjoyed them for a number of years. And how do you repay the debt – by denying Him because you don’t hear a tic? Some would look at this as a philosophy of “what-makes-me-happy-is-good”, i.e. Hedonism. Is this what makes you OhsoHappy?


So what's the moral of the story? The evidence is in the works.

JoeT

[ohsohappy]

Notwithstanding your ideology, in all things, what God makes are good. No doubt, you’ve enjoyed them for a number of years. And how do you repay the debt – by denying Him because you don’t hear a tic? Some would look at this as a philosophy of “what-makes-me-happy-is-good”, i.e. Hedonism. Is this what makes you OhsoHappy?


So what's the moral of the story? The evidence is in the works.

JoeT

See the thing is, is that I don't believe that everything that makes me happy is good. I don't believe that lot of things that normally makes anyone happy is good, and in contrast, not everything that makes me unhappy is necessarily bad, but can be looked at as something that makes me stronger. I'm not Hedonistic, just doubtful. Don't confuse the two.


Hedonism:
1) Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
2) Philosophy The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
3) Psychology The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

This is not how I live my life.

[Maggie 3]

It is the soul of man that cries out for understanding, and belief. Belief is the
Foundation to build your life upon. Call out to our Creator and Ask Him to
Reveal Himself to you. Be not afraid of life, with belief, it is the great force of our
Mind. We are deaf and blind without belief and live in darkness. But when we believe,
Love shall reveal the secret places of God in our hearts and fill us with light so we can see. Once you have learned to love, you have learned to live life to the fullest.
God is Love and without it there is darkness, nothing. Love brings us together.

May the Lord Bless you with His Love and Understanding.

Maggie 3

This is what I believe.

[Mayniac]

I hear you. I'm in the same situation.

My mum's orthodox, my dad's protestant and as a child, I attended both churches (generally one a week). As a young child, when I was more naïve (naive GENERALLY, not for believing in god, before you all flame me) I believed in god. But when I got into double figures of age, I started to doubt it and now, I'm 100% atheist.

And like you, I generally believe in Christian values. I even attend church on occasion (an empty church gives you unbelievable solace). Yet I cannot believe in any form of god, and have the same beliefs as you, that god is a creation of mankind, not the other way round. Without man, there is no god.


As with advice on what to do... it's tricky. You can stay agnostic, it's perfectly acceptable. But looking at your post, I doubt you'll be able to be monotheist. You're more likely to find atheism easier (Yes I know this seems biased, but this is the logical answer from the original info). You can live as an atheist but with Christian values- Christian values all come from the bible, and the bible is merely a book. Heck you could take all your values from the Qur'an and still be opposed to the idea of God (I think). I've met people who are both pagan and Christian... which kind of oppose each other, but hey, you get the idea.

All in all, you need to think of what you're comfortable being with. And you don't need to classify yourself as anything if you don't want to. It's a personal choice.


Maggie 3-

It is the soul of man that cries out for understanding, and belief. Belief is the
foundation to build your life upon. Call out to our Creator and Ask Him to
reveal Himself to you. Be not afraid of life, with belief, it is the great force of our
mind. We are deaf and blind without belief and live in darkness. But when we believe,
love shall reveal the secret places of God in our hearts and fill us with light so we can see. Once you have learned to love, you have learned to live life to the fullest.
God is Love and without it there is darkness, nothing. Love brings us together.

May the Lord Bless you with His Love and Understanding.

Maggie 3

This is what I believe.

-This is not what ohsohappy needs. Just read this quote

As many times as I've been preached to, I'm still reluctant.

I'm not looking to be preached to either, so please, do not.

I am very happy for the people that can believe so strongly, And I admire them, but I can not bring myself to completely agree.

Does it look like she needs more preaching?
Sorry but you should keep in mind the respect and trust you are getting to produce an unbiased (yes hypocritical, but not as much as this) answer. Not try and persuade her to go towards the side she is most uncertain of. This is NOT the answer, and as much as praying may help a Christian, it is a different matter for someone who is unsure about god. This is pre-school logic.

Sorry for the bias :)

Good luck