Proof of God from Religion

[seagal]

It was given in small verses over time and he had others learn them and write them down.

I said explain, not know how to use.

So, the people of Carthage didn’t offer child sacrifices via the Priestly Class to their gods of the sea for safe passage?

Perhaps they were wrong about the child sacrifices after all.

As would then be Tertullian’s claims.

Along with many others.

Sarah x

The argument the OP is proposing is not designed to prove the existence of the Christian God or the Islamic God or the God of any other faith tradition. The argument simply says that the fact that since time immemorial man has been acknowledging a force or being larger than himself that there must in fact be a force or being larger than himself. I’m assuming that any particular revelation of who this God is is outside of the scope of the argument.

 

[inocente]

“Gone With the Wind” was attended by more people than any film in human history. What does that prove? That people liked the film. What does religion prove? That many humans like to get together. By this theory, the entertainment industry must be holy because I suspect that more people attend films, concerts, sporting events and plays than church.

You may be on to something. Apparently there are a growing number of places in the UK where people gather on a Sunday morning for fellowship and to sing songs. Like an Anglican service but secular and no sermon. Time will tell whether or not that misses the entire point.

 

[PRmerger]

You may be on to something. Apparently there are a growing number of places in the UK where people gather on a Sunday morning for fellowship and to sing songs. Like an Anglican service but secular and no sermon. Time will tell whether or not that misses the entire point.

I thought Anglican services were already secular. Mention of God is merely optional.

 

[PRmerger]

With all due respect, the fact that your best argument is “lots of people have believed it for a long time” indicates the opposite from where I’m sitting.

I don’t see where the OP posited that this is his “best argument”. It is simply one more in the multitude of arguments for God’s existence.

Taken by itself, it probably is not compelling enough to convert anyone who starts from a position of “I won’t believe”.

But it is either the catalyst that propels someone to investigate further…

Or…

It may be the final nail in the coffin of atheism after one has looked at a whole bunch o’ arguments for God’s existence, and, upon wavering between belief and disbelief, sees this argument and it tips him over to the belief side.

 

[atheistgirl]

The argument the OP is proposing is not designed to prove the existence of the Christian God or the Islamic God or the God of any other faith tradition. The argument simply says that the fact that since time immemorial man has been acknowledging a force or being larger than himself that there must in fact be a force or being larger than himself. I’m assuming that any particular revelation of who this God is is outside of the scope of the argument.

And in every single case, except for three, they were all wrong?

That to me says it’s far more likely than not that there is no supernatural being.

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

I thought Anglican services were already secular. Mention of God is merely optional.

You might say that, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

 

[PRmerger]

And in every single case, except for three, they were all wrong?

That to me says it’s far more likely than not that there is no supernatural being.

Sarah x

Actually, they were all right.

They were worshiping a Transcendent Being.

Quite right about that.

 

[Nihilist]

In much the same way cultures have been going to witch doctors for centuries?

Some people are predisposed to all sorts of things.

Depression

Alcohol abuse

Gambling

Paranoia

The numbers of people world wide suffering from any of the above is in the millions.

This doesn’t mean their predisposition is a good thing.

What do you say to the millions on Hindus predisposed to their beliefs in their gods?

Your pre-disposition is better than their pre-disposition?

Sarah x

Well, it seems humans have to go with one thing or the other. Otherwise, life is empty. So, if its a choice between gambling, paranoia, alchohol, or religion, choose religion!

I would suggest, in fact, that gambling, drug abuse, promiscuity, are, in fact, distorted forms of the search for the transcendent.

Human beings are strange creatures- we can never be satisfied. Therefore, we always search for something beyond (more wealth, power, physical pleasure, knowledge.) But, since, constitutionally, we are incapable of being satisifed, none of these lead to real happiness.

Therefore, the only authentic human response is to be oriented towards an utterly Transcendent. This is the human state.

If there is a God, it is what we were made to do.

If there isn’t a God, and we are merely random confluences of atoms, what does anything matter? If there is no God, what does ‘truth’ matter anyway?

Therefore, ‘belief’ in God is the only authentic human option.

 

[PRmerger]

I would suggest, in fact, that gambling, drug abuse, promiscuity, are, in fact, distorted forms of the search for the transcendent.

Egg-zactly. :sad_yes:

 

[Nihilist]

Muhammad was a wealthy merchant and caravan leader. He had everything he wanted and was possible to buy. All of a sudden in his 40’s he starts another path, as a religious leader. He starts to recite by hearth the Koran. He did have to repeat it by hearth many times because he did not know how to read and write. Something supernatural happened to him in that cave and it was not anxiety because he did not understand why is lightning before raining. This is an atheist mistake “could think of to explain wind, rain, fire, thunder, lightening and so on.”. People knew and used nature.

Yes. If God seeks to communicate, there is no reason to believe that He doesn’t communicate through other religions.

I have the good fortune to be born Roman Catholic. But, for those without access to this faith, the search for God is no less real.

I don’t doubt for one moment that the experiences of Muhammad, Buddha, Plutarch, Plotinus, etc. were communications with the same God, who Moses and Jesus encountered. There is, after all, only One God.

 

[meltzerboy]

Well, it seems humans have to go with one thing or the other. Otherwise, life is empty. So, if its a choice between gambling, paranoia, alchohol, or religion, choose religion!

I would suggest, in fact, that gambling, drug abuse, promiscuity, are, in fact, distorted forms of the search for the transcendent.

Human beings are strange creatures- we can never be satisfied. Therefore, we always search for something beyond (more wealth, power, physical pleasure, knowledge.) But, since, constitutionally, we are incapable of being satisifed, none of these lead to real happiness.

Therefore, the only authentic human response is to be oriented towards an utterly Transcendent. This is the human state.

If there is a God, it is what we were made to do.

If there isn’t a God, and we are merely random confluences of atoms, what does anything matter? If there is no God, what does ‘truth’ matter anyway?

Therefore, ‘belief’ in God is the only authentic human option.

Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, does lack of belief in G-d mean we are but “random confluences of atoms”? Couldn’t our existence still be governed by scientific principles rather than randomness?

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, it seems humans have to go with one thing or the other. Otherwise, life is empty. So, if its a choice between gambling, paranoia, alchohol, or religion, choose religion!

I prefer none of the above

I would suggest, in fact, that gambling, drug abuse, promiscuity, are, in fact, distorted forms of the search for the transcendent.

I don’t think so.

I do agree that many things may be going on and not all additions are well understood, but I doubt the neuroscience or the psychological therapies are suggesting to patients what’s really at the root of their addictions is their frustrated search for a god

Human beings are strange creatures- we can never be satisfied.

Hello!!!

Therefore, we always search for something beyond (more wealth, power, physical pleasure, knowledge.) But, since, constitutionally, we are incapable of being satisfied, none of these lead to real happiness.

Sorry but this is simply not true.

Not for everyone.

Certainly not for many people I know and most certainly not for me.

Therefore, the only authentic human response is to be oriented toward an utterly Transcendent. This is the human state.

Sorry. No. I must not be human then

If there is a God, it is what we were made to do.

If.

If there isn’t a God, and we are merely random confluences of atoms, what does anything matter? If there is no God, what does ‘truth’ matter anyway?

Oh it matters because those claiming God or gods exist do so with absolute certainty and claim special knowledge into the working mind of God or their gods and what this God or gods wants people to do.

It matters a lot if people are conforming their lives to the requirements of a supernatural being that simply isn’t there. Much like those that sacrificed their own children because they were told by the Priestly class this is what their god wanted and they had absolute faith in them and their god of the sea.

It’s a matter of great importance, especially for the child

They were murdering their own children to please a god that didn’t exist.

I think that’s quite important personally

Therefore, ‘belief’ in God is the only authentic human option.

My position is belief in God or gods is not an authentic or viable option or even response given the dearth of evidence for any.

As mentioned by others previously I don’t think this particular proof works or is particularly good.

I’m surprised no one has brought up the hundreds of millions of believers in Feng Shui and Vastu

Sarah x

 

[meltzerboy]

Every culture had a sense of the reality of the supernatural. People understood the cause-effect relationship, and when things happened differently people suspected the intervention of the supernatural. That doesn’t mean there were not some people trying to take advantage of the others, nor did they not make mistakes, and this mistakes are used by the atheists to discredit any supernatural intervention.
Unfortunately much of the historical details of the religions are lost, and here again atheists feel they can fill up the gaps any way they want: what follows is that our ancestors must have been a bunch of total idiots in order to be religious. But all anthropologists agree that our ancestors were as intelligent as we are today.

However, how intelligent are we TODAY?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I propose a new proof of the existence of God, based on the existence of religion.

1- Most (if not all) human cultures have a tendency to recognize some Transcendental Being (though they use different names and images).

2- People in general are not ‘mugs’. Some people can be duped, but on the whole, they are pretty quick to recognize frauds and fallacies, and pointless things.

3- Therefore, there must be ‘something’ behind these religions. Either it is- the reality of some Transcendental Being (God), or at least the human need to recognize some such being (a ‘Desire-for-God’).

4-Therefore either God exists, or the ‘Desire-for-God’ exists.

5- If the latter- that the ‘Desire-for-God’ exists- God must also exist, otherwise the desire would have no object, and no direction, and would not, properly speaking, be a desire, but would manifestly be so pointless, that no one would be taken in, much less entire cultures.

6- Therefore God exists.

I wouldn’t frame the argument that way. I would say:

1. Christians, Jews, Muslims know that God revealed himself to man at the beginning of the human race.
2. Since that time a belief in a transcendent God of some sort has existed in various places around the world as far back as we have records. Even primitive tribes have some such notion.
3. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that a transcendent God does exist and the various notions of his nature is a kind of after glow of that initial Revelation that has survived thoughout time in various forms.

• I would call this a proof but I would say that would be a reasonable basis for being personally convinced that such a transcendent being exists and this can serve as a step for Faith in Divine Revelation as expressed in the three major faiths today. If God had not revealed himself it is hard to see how peoples could have conceived of such a notion.

** A similar notion is expressed at the beginning of the Catechism, Part I.

Linus2nd

 

[Nihilist]

I wouldn’t frame the argument that way. I would say:

1. Christians, Jews, Muslims know that God revealed himself to man at the beginning of the human race.
2. Since that time a belief in a transcendent God of some sort has existed in various places around the world as far back as we have records. Even primitive tribes have some such notion.
3. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that a transcendent God does exist and the various notions of his nature is a kind of after glow of that initial Revelation that has survived thoughout time in various forms.

• I would call this a proof but I would say that would be a reasonable basis for being personally convinced that such a transcendent being exists and this can serve as a step for Faith in Divine Revelation as expressed in the three major faiths today. If God had not revealed himself it is hard to see how peoples could have conceived of such a notion.

** A similar notion is expressed at the beginning of the Catechism, Part I.

Linus2nd

I agree, it is not a logical proof, but rather a demonstration (or ‘proof’) based on anthropological evidence. And, my experience is, the deeper you look into religions (even apparently very different ones), the greater the similarities.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and neo-Platonism all seem to have elements of the Trinity.

I the recently struck by the clearl analogies to Christ in the story of Odin, hanging from a tree, in order to obtain wisdom. Or Prometheus, nailed to a cliff, as a punishment for loving mankind.

Could we go so far as to say that, not merely the idea of a Transcendent Being, but also the mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation is foreshadowed in vague but indisputable ways in different religions?

Which surely cannot be simply co-incidence…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Hello!!! . . . Sarah x

So, if I’ve got it right, in your view:

• life is what it is
• there are ups and downs, but overall life is good
• you love your family and you love your dogs and horses; it is such as these that make life worthwhile
• conflicts are a part of life and a means to growth
• it is a matter of living life to its limit, its fullness
  This all sounds good to me.

What I don’t get is why you define yourself as “atheist”.
Shouldn’t you be asserting your own world view.

To me it is difficult to take seriously someone telling me what I believe, getting it wrong and then saying it is not true.
I would agree with you, I also do not believe in the god you think people believe in.
I do not believe God would tell me to kill my children, which you believe He does, for example.
Now, society tells us that it is good to abort our children if it threatens our happiness, at least that we can do it if we wish. We do not need orders from God to do this according to the law.

At any rate, I believe you could not adopt my way of thinking.
While it takes me into the heart of things, it would take you into some unreal, imaginary world, away from the concrete loves in your life.

Could I call myself an a-atheist? Even though I do not believe there is no God, it feels silly to label myself this way.
I am a Christian because Jesus is the Centre of my life, of time and the entire universe, as the means whereby this all comes into being - in love…
“No God” is the centre of yours?

 

[atheistgirl]

So, if I’ve got it right, in your view:

• life is what it is
• there are ups and downs, but overall life is good
• you love your family and you love your dogs and horses; it is such as these that make life worthwhile
• conflicts are a part of life and a means to growth
• it is a matter of living life to its limit, its fullness
  This all sounds good to me.

And chocolate. We both forgot about chocolate :doh2:

What I don’t get is why you define yourself as “atheist”.
Shouldn’t you be asserting your own world view.

Oh, atheist is just a useful shorthand.

As for asserting my own world view, I don’t think I assert anything.

The back and forth I enjoy here is just answering questions and clarifying where I’m coming from on a particular issue, but I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone here I’m right and they’re wrong, so I’m not really asserting anything - just explaining my position.

To me it is difficult to take seriously someone telling me what I believe, getting it wrong and then saying it is not true.

When did I tell you what you believed?

I would agree with you, I also do not believe in the god you think people believe in.
I do not believe God would tell me to kill my children, which you believe He does, for example.

I wasn’t taking about the God of the Bible in the example I gave earlier. If you re-read what I said I was talking about the gods the people of Carthage believed in, and to appease them, encouraged by their Priests they offered their own children as sacrifices to these gods.

Of course, the god of the sea they were trying to show faith in by offering their child sacrifice for a safe journey was nothing more than the wind and waves we study now and have pretty much nailed now scientifically.

They were murdering their own children to please a god that simply wasn’t there and for an outcome that was going to be whatever it was going to be, depending on the weather at the time

Now, society tells us that it is good to abort our children if it threatens our happiness, at least that we can do it if we wish. We do not need orders from God to do this according to the law.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Are you making a link between the people of Carthage and those people who abort their child?

My support for the life of the unborn child is well documented across this board.

At any rate, I believe you could not adopt my way of thinking.

I suspect you may be right. Certainly not without at least some hard evidence for the existence of a supernatural being, Deity, or God.

While it takes me into the heart of things, it would take you into some unreal, imaginary world, away from the concrete loves in your life.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking I and many others who do not believe in the existence of anything supernatural, have not, can not, or do not experience something close to what you might call the numinous.

However, that experience for me - I can’t speak for others - is grounded ultimately in the fierce, savage, uncaring beauty of reality.

Could I call myself an a-atheist?

Go for it!

Even though I do not believe there is no God, it feels silly to label myself this way.

Oh. OK. Perhaps not then.

I am a Christian because Jesus is the Centre of my life, of time and the entire universe, as the means whereby this all comes into being - in love…

I understand that.

You have this in common with another billion or so Christians.

“No God” is the centre of yours?

Um, I’m not sure how something or someone who I do not believe exists can be at the center of my life

Sarah x

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree, it is not a logical proof, but rather a demonstration (or ‘proof’) based on anthropological evidence. And, my experience is, the deeper you look into religions (even apparently very different ones), the greater the similarities.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and neo-Platonism all seem to have elements of the Trinity.

I the recently struck by the clearl analogies to Christ in the story of Odin, hanging from a tree, in order to obtain wisdom. Or Prometheus, nailed to a cliff, as a punishment for loving mankind.

Could we go so far as to say that, not merely the idea of a Transcendent Being, but also the mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation is foreshadowed in vague but indisputable ways in different religions?

Which surely cannot be simply co-incidence…

Since creation is the act of the Trinity, it cannot help but reflect its three fold origin. However, this reflection has become evident only after God’s Revelation, especially in the New Testament. Therefore, creatures cannot be used as a " proof " for the existence of the Trinity but only for the existence of God.

Linus2nd

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I agree that many people can be duped- but for Christianity to dupe the whole of Western Europe for almost 2,000 years? Or Islam to dupe the whole Middle East?

Such a phenomenon would imply a highly organized, intelligent group of ‘con-artists’ and a highly credible group of ‘mugs’. But this simply cannot be the case, since, although there are differences in intelligence between people, there is not a radical or discrete separation between ‘cons’ and ‘mugs’. Moreover, any fraud really can’t last that long. Truth has a way of coming through. What’s more, people (of whatever level of intelligence) have an ‘instinct’ against being ‘duped’…

Natural philosophers believed in Aristotelean metaphysics for going on 2,000 years. Much of it was pure speculation.

 

[Partinobodycula]

But surely, since you (presumably) are also a human being, you, by definition are part of that collective who will believe just about anything…

You have invoked a sweeping generalization fallacy. Assuming that what is true of the group as a whole, is also true of each of its individual components. As my profile shows, I’m a solipsist. I accept nothing on faith. I believe to be true, only that which I know to be true.

I’m not like you. I’m atypical. You’re prototypical.

The O.P’s premise is flawed for two reasons. 1. People are idiots, and are prone to believing almost anything. 2. Spirituality carries with it very powerful evolutionary advantages, which makes its prevalence the likely result of simple natural selection.