Anyone interested in a formal debate on God's existence?

[Darryl_B]

I fully agree that religious experience is an entirely legitimate way to justify one’s belief in God. Alvin Plantinga even goes so far as to call belief in God “properly basic.” However, the Biblical view also allows for arguments from natural theology. See especially Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:19-20.

But that is the problem, Paul in Romans said just look around at nature and it proves itself. And well I agree fundamentally with that premise, that has been the target of modern (dare I call them) “scientists” though I would personally use the term “speculists”. Arm-chair sciencists.

 

[ngill09]

I fully agree that religious experience is an entirely legitimate way to justify one’s belief in God. Alvin Plantinga even goes so far as to call belief in God “properly basic.” However, the Biblical view also allows for arguments from natural theology. See especially Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:19-20.

And 1 Peter 3:15

As far as my definition being “weak,” a necessary and personal cause of contingent reality is at least very much like God. A thing is contingent if and only if it possibly exists and possibly does not exist. A thing is necessary if and only if it exists and cannot possibly not exist. A person is an entity with consciousness and an ability to reason. Aristotle once remarked that human beings are rational animals, in contrast to the brute beasts he was comparing humans to.

Now, the definition I provided only applies to the modal third way argument I’ll be defending. The second argument, the modal perfection argument, seeks to demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and necessary entity. That most certainly would qualify as God.

I think it’s a good enough definition to get to a basic God. But I wish you’d try to argue for the God of Christianity, by adding the clause that this being wants to have a relationship with us.

(I like the Argument from Divine Hiddenness )

 

[punkforchrist]

And 1 Peter 3:15

Also true.

I think it’s a good enough definition to get to a basic God. But I wish you’d try to argue for the God of Christianity, by adding the clause that this being wants to have a relationship with us.

(I like the Argument from Divine Hiddenness )

I’ve found it difficult to argue for both God’s existence and the truth of Christianity in particular during the same debate. I mean, only William Lane Craig can seem to do it well.

 

[Lion_IRC]

If punkforChrist argues a good case for monotheism that’s gonna be a win for biblical theism pretty much by default. God with a capital “G” isnt going to be ambiguous.

Great stuff PCF. Good luck.

I wish the debate was being hosted here in front of a bigger audience. Have you asked the Moderators here if they would consider a strictly moderated formal debate thread?

If the rules were pre-arranged and the thread locked/restricted to Mod-approved posts by contestants only it might get the nod.

Maybe AvT debate thread peanut galleries go all off-topic dissecting the arguments and breaking all sorts of other CAF rules along the way.
Simple. Dont have a peanut gallery. Just a Poll.

…Who won? Did you change your mind?

 

[Love4All]

Jealousy is ordering your followers to murder people who don’t worship you.

No, it isn’t, and if you’re not even going to respect the meanings of words, why pretend you want to have a serious discussion?

See Deuteronomy 13.

Deuteronomy is not a dictionary. Deuteronomy is part of a much larger work whose gist we are discussing in this thread, but your selection of passages from Scripture together with your particular interpretive spin on them cannot be useful as data in this discussion. Scripture ought to be off-limits, at least for you, seeing that you lack the primary principle of proper interpretation of Scripture. Without it, you cannot possibly penetrate into the true meaning, and we ought to be discussing meaning, rather than misunderstandings of meanings seen by others.

Would this “healthy” jealousy you’re talking about involve murdering someone if they decide to leave you?

That is a personal question, out of left field. We are not in a relationship, and how I treat those with whom I am is my business. We are discussing the existence of a reality that I call “God.” God is Truth, but so far it seems you would prefer a Truth that was indifferent to truth and falsehood. At least, that is the closest to an on-topic objection that I can find in your query above. We could chalk it up to your misapprehension of Deuteronomy, I suppose, since it seems to be a continuation of that.

You objected to the word “jealous” to describe God. You also objected to the word, “adulterous.” I did not address your latter objection since I do not hold that there is indeed any sense in which God could be described as “adulterous.” The former, however, I did defend, because there is a legitimate way in which God could be seen as jealous. He Himself describes Himself in such words in the Decalogue.

Now, however, it seems, you wish to find fault with God for dealing life and death. Are you unaware that God has the power of life and death? God is Truth. Should God be indifferent to His chosen People when they are seduced into falsehood?

But all this, still, is just a story in a book about God; it is not God. Before you could truly apprehend the import of the stories you read in Holy Scripture, you would have to know the Main Protagonist, namely God, and since you do not, we are not going to be able to allow Scripture in this discussion.

If you can use Scripture to illustrate some point of experience from your own life or your own observation of life, that would be acceptable, but it is not acceptable for you to attempt to derive raw data for our discussion from Scripture, that does not match up with your own experience of reality. We are discussing reality, I hope. If not, I’m not much interested.

Your objectification of women is noted.

That is not reality, that is your projection of your opinion into cyberspace, about a person you know nothing about.

Let’s try to stick to topic, shall we? Thanks.

 

[ngill09]

No, it isn’t, and if you’re not even going to respect the meanings of words, why pretend you want to have a serious discussion?

Deuteronomy is not a dictionary. Deuteronomy is part of a much larger work whose gist we are discussing in this thread, but your selection of passages from Scripture together with your particular interpretive spin on them cannot be useful as data in this discussion. Scripture ought to be off-limits, at least for you, seeing that you lack the primary principle of proper interpretation of Scripture. Without it, you cannot possibly penetrate into the true meaning, and we ought to be discussing meaning, rather than misunderstandings of meanings seen by others.

Now, however, it seems, you wish to find fault with God for dealing life and death. Are you unaware that God has the power of life and death? God is Truth. Should God be indifferent to His chosen People when they are seduced into falsehood?

But all this, still, is just a story in a book about God; it is not God. Before you could truly apprehend the import of the stories you read in Holy Scripture, you would have to know the Main Protagonist, namely God, and since you do not, we are not going to be able to allow Scripture in this discussion.

If you can use Scripture to illustrate some point of experience from your own life or your own observation of life, that would be acceptable, but it is not acceptable for you to attempt to derive raw data for our discussion from Scripture, that does not match up with your own experience of reality. We are discussing reality, I hope. If not, I’m not much interested.

That is not reality, that is your projection of your opinion into cyberspace, about a person you know nothing about.

Let’s try to stick to topic, shall we? Thanks.

Please interpret the following, particularly the bolded, in the “correct” way:
Deuteronomy 13:

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. **Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. **Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15** you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town.** You must destroy it completely,** both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17 and none of the condemned things[c] are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— 18 because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.**

The fault I lay at Yahweh is a murderous jealousy at those who do not worship him. You say that this quality is a good one that every husband should have towards his wife. It then follows: if it is good for God to order the death of those who do not worship him, is it good for husbands to murder their wives if they do not love them?

The question I have is this: is it more likely that humans were made by a jealous, murderous God (Yahweh), or that Yahweh was made by jealous, murderous humans?

 

[Love4All]

Please interpret the following, particularly the bolded, in the “correct” way:

The fault I lay at Yahweh is a murderous jealousy at those who do not worship him. You say that this quality is a good one that every husband should have towards his wife. It then follows: if it is good for God to order the death of those who do not worship him, is it good for husbands to murder their wives if they do not love them?

The question I have is this: is it more likely that humans were made by a jealous, murderous God (Yahweh), or that Yahweh was made by jealous, murderous humans?

I said it once, but perhaps you did not follow my gist.

Holy Scripture is not allowed in this discussion.

The reason, I have given, but if you don’t understand it, go ahead and ask for a clarification.

Do not simply ignore my injunction as if I never made it, and continue to discuss your interpretation of Holy Scripture. I would not discuss calculus with a person who did not understand the difference between multiplication and division. I cannot discuss Holy Scripture with you.

We can discuss whether a reality properly termed “God” exists. That is the topic here. Spins on Holy Scripture, and your own personal gripes against your own imaginary gods, are not part of that topic nor do they relate to it in any way.

 

[ngill09]

I said it once, but perhaps you did not follow my gist.

Holy Scripture is not allowed in this discussion.

The reason, I have given, but if you don’t understand it, go ahead and ask for a clarification.

Do not simply ignore my injunction as if I never made it, and continue to discuss your interpretation of Holy Scripture. I would not discuss calculus with a person who did not understand the difference between multiplication and division. I cannot discuss Holy Scripture with you.

We can discuss whether a reality properly termed “God” exists. That is the topic here. Spins on Holy Scripture, and your own personal gripes against your own imaginary gods, are not part of that topic nor do they relate to it in any way.

If you’ll recall, you asked me to clarify why I don’t think the Biblical character Yahweh exists:

Above, you said you are pretty sure Zeus, Yahweh, and Baal don’t exist. Please clarify this statement of yours, because it holds the most promise of leading us in the right direction. Are you saying that whatever God may be, He cannot have the Name Zeus, nor the Name Yahweh, nor the Name Baal? Or are you saying that whatever God may be, you do not think He has any of the characteristics that you, in your mind, hold to be associated with those names? Or, do you rather envision some backwoods, ignorant goat farmer making up names for the lightning and the thunder and the seasons and the stars, and explaining the universe to himself in that way, and you don’t think his explanation is real? Finally, and I think this question will bring us closer to the point: are you at all familiar with the etymology of those names and what they were originally supposed to signify? Are you objecting to the names, or to the concepts associated with those names (and if you are, are you sure you know what the names originally signified?); or, are you objecting, on the other hand, to the basic idea that there is any intelligent being at all whom we could not in principle see and point to the way we can see and point to each other? I hope my questions are not too confusing, I know my writing is obscure sometimes — my apologies.

I clarified that I was referring to the God of the Bible, who is described in that book as being jealous, as well as having other character flaws I find incompatible with a true God. You then took issue with my assertion that jealousy is a character flaw, citing a line of reasoning that a husband has a right to jealously guard his wife. I responded by demonstrating that the jealousy of Yahweh as described in the Bible is a murderous and vindictive jealousy, and asked if you would consider such jealousy a virtue if it was held by a human being (ie, should a husband murder his wife if she is unfaithful?)

You then asserted that I don’t understand the Bible, so I quoted a passage from the Bible and asked you to interpret it in the “correct” way. And now you’ve chickened out and insisted that the Bible is off-limits.

Yes, I certainly agree that the god described in Deuteronomy 13 is imaginary. I note that you have not denied Yahweh ordered the murder of people for simply not worshiping him, and yet accuse me of “spin” for simply quoting scripture and asking you to explain it.

 

[Love4All]

If you’ll recall, you asked me to clarify why I don’t think the Biblical character Yahweh exists:

Not exactly. I was asking you to make some connection between your use of the word “Yahweh” and your idea of the True God. We apparently have a long way to go before we can even ask each other questions.

I clarified that I was referring to the God of the Bible,

That is problematic, as we can see. You and I have completely different approaches to the Bible. And I am not nearly as interested in discussing literature as I am in discussing reality.

who is described in that book as being jealous,

The word, “jealous” is used in the Bible, but it is used in a way that you seem unfamiliar with.

as well as having other character flaws I find incompatible with a true God.

Your interpretation.

You then took issue with my assertion that jealousy is a character flaw, citing a line of reasoning that a husband has a right to jealously guard his wife.

It is interesting to note that you seem not to disagree in principle.

I responded by demonstrating that the jealousy of Yahweh as described in the Bible is a murderous and vindictive jealousy, and asked if you would consider such jealousy a virtue if it was held by a human being (ie, should a husband murder his wife if she is unfaithful?)

You spun an interpretation of a book that you do not understand. We’re not going to get anywhere discussing the Bible, and if it is your intent to focus solely on your interpretation of the Bible’s meaning — a book that you treat as fiction in the first place — then that is about as far removed from reality as we could get, and I don’t want to waste any more time. So if the Bible is for you the sole source of all your ideas about God, just say so, and I’ll stop bothering with you.

Initially, such a situation doesn’t seem possible with you, since you explicitly state a negative comparison between your spin on the Yahweh of the Bible, and some other idea that you have yet to flesh out, an idea of a “true God.” I am far more interested in discussing the true God than in discussing your critical opinions of ancient literature.

You then asserted that I don’t understand the Bible, so I quoted a passage from the Bible and asked you to interpret it in the “correct” way. And now you’ve chickened out and insisted that the Bible is off-limits.

A little bit of honesty will enable you to admit that I said you shouldn’t be using the Bible from my first reply to your first use of it.

It is off-limits for you, not because I am some sort of poultry, but rather because you abuse it. The Bible is a sacred book, for sacred use. If you accepted the Bible as I do, then it might be useful in an argument between us, but as it is there is no common ground. We cannot use in an argument something that only one of us respects.

Yes, I certainly agree that the god described in Deuteronomy 13 is imaginary.

Kindly cease and desist from putting words in my mouth. The God described in Holy Scripture is real. Your false god is not. The two have nothing in common, and you are unable to read Scripture correctly, so do yourself a favor and give it up.

I note that you have not denied Yahweh ordered the murder of people for simply not worshiping him, and yet accuse me of “spin” for simply quoting scripture and asking you to explain it.

Are you accusing Jesus of Nazareth of murder or are you objecting to the fact that people all die? Because there is no middle ground. This is just one example of why we cannot allow you to use the Bible. Every human being dies, but you find fault with Nature, and pretend to consider that Nature has at its root some strange anthropomorphic projection you have erroneously labeled “Yahweh.” You are so far off base here that it will be impossible to rescue this line of interchange.

I suggest we start again. We are not discussing Scripture. We are discussing whether or not there is a reality that might properly be termed, “God.”

Once again, please get back to topic. If you possessed the necessary discipline to stay on topic while using Scripture, I’d allow it, but you don’t, so we can’t.

Put your eye on the ball. We are discussing whether or not there is God. Got anything?

 

[ngill09]

Let’s get this straight: You asked me why I didn’t believe that Yahweh was a true God. I responded by pointing out his character flaws. To illustrate those qualities, I have to refer to the Bible, because that is the primary source for the character of Yahweh. I did not start this tangent. I consider your refusal to address my references as a tacit admission of my point.

Now, back to the original: Whether or not there is a God depends on a precise definition of what you’re calling “God.” Provide one, and I’ll address it. I’m not going to bother reciting the near-infinite list of things I don’t think are real, nor will I care to address a definition of God that is so vague as to be useless.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Since we are told in Scripture that God made man in his image and likeness, a starting point for describing the God being debated could be that God is a personal, rather than an impersonal force. That eliminates Deism and Pantheism and various forms of Paganism from the discussion. God is viewed as capable of possessing traits we see in human beings but to a higher degree of course: power, intelligence, love, justice, mercy, etc. (in other words, the Christian God without reference to the Trinity since that is strictly a matter of revelation rather rational conjecture).

Caution: some consideration has to be made in this debate for excluding scientism as a refutation of the existence of God. That is to say, the principles of evidence required by science concerning material beings and forces should not be applicable to a transcendent and personal God. If such a being is allowed to exist, the way we connect with such a being should certainly transcend scientism.

No?

 

[Love4All]

Kindly bear with me here. I am sincerely attempting to move this discussion forward but it seems we’ve gotten bogged down. It is understandable from my perspective, and I hope it is not contributing to impatience in you, from yours.

The trouble is, of course, discerning just exactly what it is we are talking about. I wish to talk about reality, “a” reality — “The” Reality. But there are ideas about that. And the ideas about Reality do not approach the reality of The Reality. So, if what I think I apprehend is in fact what I think it is, one of the initial hurdles will be to remove, as the obstacles to understanding that they are, your own limited ideas of it. That is, as I say, an initial hurdle, but it seems there is another one even preceding that, and it is the opinions of other people.

This is an unfortunate phenomenon I see in many people, and it prevents them from not only apprehending the truth themselves, but also from discussing the truth meaningfully with others. We all have learned things in this life from other people. Some of the things we can learn from other people, they themselves, our teachers, might not know as exhaustively as they could. It is possible to learn something about something from someone who doesn’t really understand it, but whose words can point us in the general direction of the thing so that we ourselves can seek it out and come to know it for ourselves.

So we have three levels of jungle, so to speak, to hack through before we come to the oasis where you and I can sit down comfortably to chat. There is first of all the level of other people’s thoughts about it, neither yours nor mine, which we can conveniently catalog under headings such as “opinions about ‘Zeus,’” “opinions about ‘Yahweh,’” “opinions about ‘Baal.’” Keep in mind that we are talking about other peoples’ opinions at the moment, neither yours nor mine. I would rather leave the opinions of those who are not either you or me out of our discussion, as I think it will needlessly complicate things to keep them in. And no doubt, this first level of jungle is at least partially continuous with the second, which is your preconceived notions about what “Christians” believe, what I believe, etc. — your opinions about other people’s opinions about reality. Your own opinions have not developed in a vacuum, apart from the rest of the world. You have formed your opinions while living in the world and within the influences you have received. And connected with this is, of course, your own real opinions about Reality. This is closer to what I’d like to discuss but not quite there yet. Thirdly, there is the level of my opinions about this Reality that I claim to know, which, although more familiar to me and thus more explicable by me than anything on the previous two levels, is yet at least a step or two further removed from Reality itself, which is what I’d like to discuss.

It is so problematic because it is Infinite and Transcendent, and whenever we point to anything in this world we automatically exclude everything else, and no discussion of ultimate Reality can really exclude anything, but the question then becomes, how to include it? A simplistic solution is of course Pantheism, but I hold that that is too simplistic, and actually false, because it skips over much that goes to the Understanding of Reality. God is Simple. And Pantheism is a complex interpretation of Reality, compared with God, who is Simple. The God of the Pantheists is actually more complex than God really is, believe it or not. The non-intuitive nature of this truth makes it difficult to grasp, and the very Simplicity of God makes Him impossible to comprehend, so what are we going to be talking about???

Yeah… one of the main reasons I don’t call myself an atheist is because there does not seem to be a consistent definition of what God is. God is a lot of different things to different people. So whether I think something exists or doesn’t exist, or whether if I simply don’t know what the person is talking about depends on what they’re calling God. If you’re talking about Zeus, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t exist. More or less the same with Yahweh or Baal. I’m agnostic towards most forms of a Deist God. And for some people who simply say that God is love or the laws of physics or the superego, I’d agree that their God does exist (although I’d say calling those things “God” is a misnomer).

Continued in next post. . .

 

[Love4All]

To me, as I’ve alluded, God is Ultimate Reality. What many people call “God,” might not be That. So yeah, it can get confusing and difficult to discuss. Above, you lumped Yahweh in with Baal and Zeus. Three different words, signifying, what? The same concept, but poorly understood? Or, different concepts, but attempts to place some kind of a concept on Ultimate Reality? What is the Ultimate Reality? One thing seems clear: it is not the concept you associate with “Yahweh.” Yet, it seems to me — and this will be far from clear, though I will express it simply — it is the concept I associate with “Yahweh” or to be more precise, YHVH. So plainly, I hold that there is a difference between your association connected with that Word, and mine. And that difference is not going to be resolved by you objecting to Scripture and me defending it. I want something made utterly clear: You do not know what I mean by God. Or perhaps, you do, but you aren’t saying so. Perhaps, you will get an inkling as our discussion progresses. I wish I did not have to disclaim and explain in so many, many words, but my goal in using all these words is to get past them, and in order to get past them we have to cut down some jungle, as I’ve said. I have a definite concept in my mind that I associate with Yahweh, and it is a completely different concept than the one you associate with that Name, and I understand that you think you read the Bible correctly, but I can assure you that you do not. And it is not a matter of understanding the words, but of understanding the concepts, and ultimately of apprehending the Reality that underlies those concepts, which the concepts, even when correct, cannot ever touch. So if even correct concepts cannot touch the Reality, how much less, incorrect concepts!!! And you so far have demonstrated that you hold incorrect concepts with regard to the Holy Name. More explanation, many more words, all in an attempt to make clear to you why we are not discussing the Bible. But will you get it now? God only knows. I hope you do, as I would very much like to move on.

This is hopelessly vague. Your argument, as stated so far, is “I know that Reality exists because I know Reality.”

Are there even degrees of reality? I take “real” to mean “actually existing” and that seems like a pretty binary proposition.

If there are no degrees of reality, then Pantheism is Truth. As I’ve already stated, to me it strikes as far too simplistic, ironically, to approach the Real Simplicity of God. Pantheism is like spirituality for kindergarteners, and even they could do better.

Let’s get this straight: You asked me why I didn’t believe that Yahweh was a true God.

Actually, I was attempting to discern whether your word-association with the word, “Yahweh” was salvageable or scrappable. I have since come to the conclusion that we will find it far more fruitful at this juncture to scrap it. Unfortunately, that well is poisoned, and unless you are willing to utterly renounce the invasive thoughts of other people — including the authors of Holy Scripture — it will not be useful for us to begin associating “God” with “Yahweh.” If you were willing to listen to me elucidate my understanding of the term, that would be fruitful perhaps, but initially you do not seem so disposed.

I responded by pointing out his character flaws. To illustrate those qualities, I have to refer to the Bible, because that is the primary source for the character of Yahweh. I did not start this tangent. I consider your refusal to address my references as a tacit admission of my point.

You are in no way authorized by my, the one you claim is making a tacit admission, to interpret my actions in that way. So while you are free of course to think whatever you like, I feel the need to inform you in no uncertain terms that this consideration of yours is based in delusion or illusion. To be crystal clear: I do not concede your point. I disagree with your point. I am asking you to accept our disagreement, and cease pretending my refusal to discuss it is a tacit admission of it, since that is in no way the case. I also refuse to discuss it with you for reasons that I have been taking great pains to make clear. At this juncture your options are, either accept that we do not agree and move on, or inquire more deeply into why we disagree (but I do not prefer that course at this time), or, revel in the hollowness of your imaginary victory. But I seriously counsel you away from that latter course. My preference is to move on, it may be possible for us to get back to this, but at the moment you are not properly equipped.

Now, back to the original: Whether or not there is a God depends on a precise definition of what you’re calling “God.” Provide one, and I’ll address it. I’m not going to bother reciting the near-infinite list of things I don’t think are real, nor will I care to address a definition of God that is so vague as to be useless.

The question, “Is there God?” is not the same as the question, “what is God?” The first question, can be answered with a simple yes or no. The second, hides within its brevity a query near impossible to answer. Volumes upon volumes of literature have come from the pens of human beings attempting to elucidate only a partial answer to that question. Thus, to require that the long answer be given first, before we attempt the short answer, is fairly absurd.

Is there God? Of course.

What is God? That is a good question. What is your opinion?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Love

Is there God? Of course.

I’m afraid too many people at Catholic Answers will say, “Of course not.”

What is God? That is a good question.

Yes it is, but perhaps it needn’t be separated from the question, “Is there a God?”

William Paley took this approach first in his book Natural Theology. Without relying upon Scripture, he took a completely rational approach to the question, “Is it reasonable to believe in God?” In the course of that book, the most reasonable of divine traits emerged so that the existence of God was not only very plausible, but also revealing as to what kind of God should exist.

In another book, Evidence of Christianity, he proved rather convincingly that the reasonable type of God we could best imagine actually was historically personified in the appearance of Jesus Christ, so that your second question was answered with even greater clarity:

“What is God?”

 

[Love4All]

Love

Is there God? Of course.

I’m afraid too many people at Catholic Answers will say, “Of course not.”

What is God? That is a good question.

Yes it is, but perhaps it needn’t be separated from the question, “Is there a God?”

William Paley took this approach first in his book Natural Theology. Without relying upon Scripture, he took a completely rational approach to the question, “Is it reasonable to believe in God?” In the course of that book, the most reasonable of divine traits emerged so that the existence of God was not only very plausible, but also revealing as to what kind of God should exist.

In another book, Evidence of Christianity, he proved rather convincingly that the reasonable type of God we could best imagine actually was historically personified in the appearance of Jesus Christ, so that your second question was answered with even greater clarity:

“What is God?”

To combine the two questions, a la Saint Anselm, is easy:

Is there that which could not conceivably fail to exist?

Of course.

And to define God as the Necessary Entity removes the question of whether He exists entirely. But it doesn’t say very much about Him.

 

[Hypnotoad]

With modern man I don’t believe the acceptance of a God is going to come about by using examples of the order and splendor found in nature, but rather by showing the disorder found within the human person.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hypnotoad

**With modern man I don’t believe the acceptance of a God is going to come about by using examples of the order and splendor found in nature, but rather by showing the disorder found within the human person. **

Why do you believe this?

 

[ngill09]

Love, I think the first question should be “What is God?”, then ask if that thing exists.

Also, I think you’re oversimplifying pantheism. I’d suggest reading up on some Spinoza. While not exactly a pantheist, he’s pretty close.

To put it in a way you might be sympathetic with: if the Universe is God’s thought, then would it not follow that the Universe is a part of God? Can God’s thought and being be so easily separated?

But in any case, I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a pantheist. I simply find it the most attractive of the theological positions.

 

[Aloysium]

With the Eucharist and in the mass we join in eternal worship of He, whose act of being has brought all into creation. In solitude, Scripture is a mantra, a prayer, connecting the spirit to its Source: all the wonder, all the beauty of all that is, was and will be. Holy, Holy, Holy.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Why do you believe this?

I believe this because, IMHO, I see it happening. People are using science to ignore God, which results in them looking to themselves or finite things to be the source of their happiness. This is a role man and material things cannot sustain; therefore they will be forced (usually by way of addiction) to admit that they’re dependent on a higher power for their peace of soul. I think it would be interesting to find statistics on how many people come to God by way of addiction.