God is Imaginary
Replies
-
None of the Bible was written directly by any eyewitness, as stated in the introductions to the books of the New Testament. Nihil obstat and Imprimatur!
We've covered this and we're going in circles again. I believe in the eyewitness testimonies of the apostles. Their account of the life of Jesus was told to many people and eventually written down. I see proof of the life of Jesus in the New Testament. I cannot read the bible, look at my children, or the sky, ocean, trees, etc and come to any other conclusion than there is a God. I see God in all things. I even see God at work during times of tragedy. I can feel his love, just as I can feel the love of my parents, my husband, and my children. I don't need Him to appear to me and perform a miracle in front of my eyes for me to believe.
I really was just kidding when saying I was up for hundreds of additional comments on this thread. Pretty sure we've covered everything. I've enjoyed the debate.0 -
Now that is an eyewitness account I cannot argue with.
I feel the same way sometimes reading the Psalms. Some of those were written by people who had experiences very close to my own and I feel a deep kinship across the millennia. (The imprecatory psalms, not so much.)
But eyewitness accounts of miracles leave me flat. I have zero reason to believe their authenticity.0 -
I've struggled with believing some of the miracles, myself. But then I remind myself that if I believe Jesus is the son of God and that he did indeed die, rise again, and ascend into heaven, why couldn't He have performed all the other miracles that seem far-fetched?But eyewitness accounts of miracles leave me flat. I have zero reason to believe their authenticity.0 -
What I hear you saying just now is that you believe the testimony of the Bible because you believe in the person of Jesus Christ. That is exactly the opposite of what you have been arguing all along: that you believe in God because of the account in the Bible.
Giving credence to the Bible because you have had experience of God moving in your life makes perfect sense to me. Saying that you believe in God because the Bible "proves" his existence is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Might as well believe in Voldemort.0 -
What I hear you saying just now is that you believe in the account of the Bible because you believe in the person of Jesus Christ. That is exactly the opposite of what you have been arguing all along: that you believe in God because of the account in the Bible.
Giving credence to the Bible because you have had experience of God moving in your life makes perfect sense to me. Saying that you believe in God because the Bible "proves" his existence is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Might as well believe in Voldemort.
I think I started out with using the bible as "proof" because people don't want to hear my personal experience as proof of God. I certainly didn't intend to leave that out, though. I try to separate Patti's own feelings and experiences and try to use the bible, science, and other means to argue for the existence of God. But, you're right. The reason I believe in the bible, in the eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus is because of the exprience of God moving in my life.0 -
My experience isn't "proof" for anyone but me. But for me, it's more than enough.0
-
My experience isn't "proof" for anyone but me. But for me, it's more than enough.
Exactly. That's why I don't use my own experience when having debates on the existence of God. But, I can debate it without (even successfully at times).
0 -
I disagree that you've been successful. You've set yourself an impossible task that God doesn't even bother with.
I'm just perverse enough that I enjoy arguing against the existence of God even though in God I live and move and have my being.0 -
I disagree that you've been successful. You've set yourself an impossible task that God doesn't even bother with.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that I've been successful here. That's why I said "at times". I've had atheists on MFP send me a message saying my arguments in this thread have been the best they've heard, though. I think God would be happy I "bothered".0 -
I'm just perverse enough that I enjoy arguing against the existence of God even though in God I live and move and have my being.
How can you feel good about arguing against His existence? I'm not trying to be rude; I'm sincerely curious. Why wouldn't you want everyone to know the love of God? I'm not saying shove it down people's throats, but you seem to enjoy placing doubt in people's minds and encouraging atheism/agnosticsm.0 -
The God who can be proved by the type of arguments you've been making is a false God. That's the God who existence I've been arguing against. Better to believe in no God than a false God.0
-
The God who can be proved by the type of arguments you've been making is a false God. That's the God who existence I've been arguing against. Better to believe in no God than a false God.
So, you're claiming to believe in another God than I do? Why is my God a false God, and yours is real?0 -
Sorry. I can see how that came across as insulting. I have no doubt that this is the same God I believe in:I cannot . . . . look at my children, or the sky, ocean, trees, etc and come to any other conclusion than there is a God. I see God in all things. I even see God at work during times of tragedy. I can feel his love, just as I can feel the love of my parents, my husband, and my children. I don't need Him to appear to me and perform a miracle in front of my eyes for me to believe.
And I also have no doubt that this is not an accurate way to describe God:There is proof of God, through the life of Jesus, in the bible.
It is that inaccurate way of describing God that I believe is a false image of God.0 -
It is that inaccurate way of describing God that I believe is a false image of God.
So, you believe in God, but not in Jesus as the son of God?0 -
Oh I believe that too. But not because the Bible "proves" it.0
-
Oh I believe that too. But not because the Bible "proves" it.
No. Not "because" the bible proves it. God revealed himself to us through his only son. He sent Jesus to us so we would know Him better. The bible is the word written down for us. Jesus' words are in the bible. How can that not be used to debate His existence?0 -
Gotta go for a while. Catch you in a little while. Somehow I think I've let myself open up enough to have a real conversation. Doesn't happen often and I just want you to know that I'm not ignoring you, just out of internet range!0
-
Gotta go for a while. Catch you in a little while. Somehow I think I've let myself open up enough to have a real conversation. Doesn't happen often and I just want you to know that I'm not ignoring you, just out of internet range!
Okay....we're now 2 comments away from rolling this thread!0 -
The Bible is useless for proving his existence because it's a perfect unbroken circle.
How do you know that God exists? Because the Bible tells me so.
And how do you know the Bible is true? Because it's the word of God.0 -
The Bible is useless for proving his existence because it's a perfect unbroken circle.
How do you know that God exists? Because the Bible tells me so.
And how do you know the Bible is true? Because it's the word of God.
Your comments trivialize this issue and are simply false. I’ve never argued that I know God exists only “because the Bible tells me so.” I take the position of St. Thomas Aquinas. The existence of God is a “preamble to faith.” We can know the existence of God through reason. The proof of this is that most people have a fundamental openness to belief in God. There are things about the world and human experience that points us to God’s existence.0 -
Your comments trivialize this issue and are simply false. I’ve never argued that I know God exists only “because the Bible tells me so.” I take the position of St. Thomas Aquinas. The existence of God is a “preamble to faith.” We can know the existence of God through reason. The proof of this is that most people have a fundamental openness to belief in God. There are things about the world and human experience that points us to God’s existence.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting. But I could not disagree more that the tendency of people to be religious is proof (you said God, specifically, but I expanded to just mean religiousness). 99% of the world could believe it (or anything), but that alone doesn't mean it's real.0 -
I just realized that I was reading this statement too literally, Wineplease.There is proof of God, through the life of Jesus, in the bible.
Again, I think you are wasting your time trying to "prove" the existence of God. Yet, you didn't say what I thought you said, that the Bible proves the existence of God. I disagree that it's "the life of Jesus, in the Bible" that shows me that God lives and moves; it's my experience of God's life and movement that shows me the authors of the Bible might be talking about the same experiences.
But I can see that you were saying something more subtle than "the Bible says, I believe it, that settles it."0 -
I was only making the observation that most people find it reasonable to believe in God. From this I inferred that there must be some basis for this nearly universal tendency. Good philosophical arguments can be made for God’s existence and are based on fundamental insights people have into reality based on their experience. Even if most people have trouble articulating the reasons for their belief, there is a basis for such belief in reason. I do think that universal tendencies support some objective basis for those tendencies.I'm not sure I understand what you mean, so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting. But I could not disagree more that the tendency of people to be religious is proof (you said God, specifically, but I expanded to just mean religiousness). 99% of the world could believe it (or anything), but that alone doesn't mean it's real.0 -
From this I inferred that there must be some basis for this nearly universal tendency.
One fairly obvious potential reason, from my point of view, is that belief was evolutionarily advantageous to humans. The things that come along with religion (shared culture, traditions, guidelines for behavior, etc.) could have helped believers pass on their genes.0 -
I was only making the observation that most people find it reasonable to believe in God. From this I inferred that there must be some basis for this nearly universal tendency. Good philosophical arguments can be made for God’s existence and are based on fundamental insights people have into reality based on their experience. Even if most people have trouble articulating the reasons for their belief, there is a basis for such belief in reason. I do think that universal tendencies support some objective basis for those tendencies.I'm not sure I understand what you mean, so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting. But I could not disagree more that the tendency of people to be religious is proof (you said God, specifically, but I expanded to just mean religiousness). 99% of the world could believe it (or anything), but that alone doesn't mean it's real.
Most people found it reasonable to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. Most people found it reasonable to believe that the earth was flat and if you sailed long enough you would fall off. Ignorance does not equal proof.0 -
Well, the earth certainly appears to be flat and that everything else is moving around the earth. There are bigger considerations that show these perspectives are relative and need to be modified of fitted into a bigger framework. The fundamental experience, however, is a real one. With respect to God, human beings tend to have a desire to integrate our experience and find meaning in it within a larger framework that includes a supreme meaning-giving reality (God). Just like our experience of the flatness of the earth and its centrality to everything else is something that is real and should be taken seriously (in fact, that experience is a basic one that is only modified by more extensive attention to our experience), so we should take our experience of God and searching for meaning seriously. Again, just because people did not have a big enough framework to properly interpret their experience does not mean the experience was meaningless or not helpful. Our experience of a "flat" earth is the fundamental building block of eventually discovering that it is actually a sphere.Most people found it reasonable to believe that the earth was the center of the universe. Most people found it reasonable to believe that the earth was flat and if you sailed long enough you would fall off. Ignorance does not equal proof.0 -
Our experience of a "flat" earth is the fundamental building block of eventually discovering that it is actually a sphere.
That sounds like something you just made up.0 -
Really? No, actually it is simply a description of how we learn. If not for our experience of the world, we could not develop more extensive and all-embracing explanations of it. There is a reason why the world appears flat to us. Expanding that experience leads to modifications of our explanations or inferences from it.That sounds like something you just made up.0 -
And expanding from our experience of a supreme meaning-giving reality (God) may lead to a theological Copernican revolution in which there is nothing like what we call God.0
-
The analogy between the two cases doesn't work. My experience of the flat ground I'm standing on is still valid with the concept of a spherical earth. Consequently, it still makes sense for me to talk about the ground being flat only that the whole planet cannot be described that way. In the case of God, however, you would have it that the basic desire for a supreme ground of meaning/God is not only too limited to capture a far greater truth but you would have us deny there is such a supreme meaning altogether. If you understand what is meant by "God" you will understand that the denial of God is the denial of meaning. The spherical earth is not a denial of my experience of flat ground. The denial of God and supreme meaning is the denial of a basic human desire and experience. In short, the two cases are not equivalent. If anything, one would be led to the conclusion that the supreme ground of meaning (God) is even greater than any conception we have. I would agree with that. What I cannot agree with is that the supreme ground of meaning is fundamentally nonexistent.And expanding from our experience of a supreme meaning-giving reality (God) may lead to a theological Copernican revolution in which there is nothing like what we call God.0
