Proving God Exists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ziggamafu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Aquin, I’m not interested in a “super-proof”, personally, and since by “super-proof” we mean a proof that CANNOT be taken as anything BUT a proof of a truth, which is definitionally impossible as it’s always possible to simply decide any proof is not a proof (ie “denial”), no one intently interested in not believing will be swayed by any impossible-to-exist super-proof.”-Yes, as I have stated before, I do not believe that it is possible to objectively prove God’s existence absolutely. However, according to the Church, it is possible to prove God’s existence beyond a reasonable doubt. If we allow this to be the standard by which we, in the United States, determine the fate of the accused, then hadn’t it better be adequate to allow us to state, at least in the sense of a reasoned viewpoint, that something is or isn’t to be acknowledged as valid? I intended before to use my rudimentary knowlege on the subjects of physics, etc. , combined with the exceptional degree of ability in the arena of logic with which I am gifted, to create an argument on the basis of reason. Unfortunately, due, I believe, to the fact that I am an only child, I also have the habit of not making things obvious by fleshing them out as is, at times, necessary in order to be understood.
 
Of course, there is this: “I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned, you have revealed them to the childlike.”
 
**Physics have been created by God, so things are calculable and predictable to us. There where no physical rules before Gods creation. There was nothing. No universe – not even an empty one. A lot more than all human knowledge and rationality and reason is the believe, the faith in God – match Phil 4,7
If we don’t have this, we have nothing, but still won’t perish into nothing, but right into Gods Judgement How embarrassed will we be then…
**
 
Rainier22 said:
Quote:
I looked at the photos on your reference. Truly these are tragic. And as usual, God gets the blame. You will do this so long as you do not believe in him, and this is Satan’s deception. Don’t believe in him or God, and if God, then all bad is caused by him.

Evil entered this world because of sin, original sin committed by man. Because of this, death, disease, evil entered the world. For God to have prevented this, it would have taken away free will where we can chose him. He does not force himself on us. We can accept him or, like you reject him. Thus consequences.

So God, the all loving, created a world where an extremely evil deity will constantly try to trick us into spending eternity in fire.
Click to expand...
Firstly, Satan is not a deity. Satan is an angel gone bad through his own free will choice.

But no, Satan and evil are made by the sin of man.

Satan was not made by the sin of man, but made GOOD by God and ALLOWED to choose to behave “not good”, which is to behave evilly.

Evil is not created (as only God “creates” properly speaking), but constructed by misuse of free will. Only GOOD is created, and all that is created (the creation) is good.
What then did the sin of man come from?
Click to expand...
The sin of man is FROM man (with consequences for mankind). The sin of Satan is FROM Satan (with consequences for the angels).
If God is omniscient, then he knew he was creating evil forces in man in the beginning, but he did so anyway. It’s almost like a cosmic game.
Click to expand...
He certainly “knew” (which is an interesting word to apply to God of course) that free will implies the possibility of evil choice, but He considered free will to be more important a gift to His supreme creatures (man and angel) than the mere possibility of evil choice.

AND, even if free will WAS misused and evil constructed by His critters given free will, He could always respond and create even greater (more and better) good from the evil chosen by those critters, which would in fact be for our (non-destroyable immortal humanity and “angelity”) even greater benefit!

The only caveat is that free will choices are only repentable-of in the “human life” realm. The demons are eternally “toast” because they never existed as persons in the realm of “human life”. And human persons who have finally chosen either God or not (hell) once “earthly dead” are commited to that choice.

I’m a big lover of game-theory. You could in fact call this a game! It is the “game” of reality. All “players” can make moves within their various constraints of their free will, and there are actual consequences for both correct play, namely “winning”, and incorrect play, namely “losing”.

The atheist NEEDS reality to NOT be a game because they hate the idea of winners and losers, because if the possibility of losing is real, they have no escape from their massive existential anxiety.

They DO in fact always carry this anxiety, which they think is simply the price of being alive. That is where they are wrong. The anxiety disappears once one realizes that reality has winners and losers, and that it’s not that difficult to be a winner, though it’s VERY difficult to be a “non-purgatory-for-‘some-time’ bound” winner! 🙂

The more anxious they (atheists) get, the more they deny winners and losers. The more they deny this, the more anxious they get. This amplifies into one form or another of desperation, which moves them either to frantic struggle against “winners and losers” or despairing “get-it-now-ness”.
 
Rainier22 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deacon Ed B
I note you still have not responded to post # 72, which I had in the beginning of my response. Just an observation

Ha! I’m sorry - again! I answered it below with the refutation of the argument from design, but perhaps **this video **will help. It shows how even a clock that you see on your wrist can come about naturally. The video is designed to refute intelligent design, but I think it applies somewhat to what you’re saying. Either way, a free listen to Coldplay’s “Clocks” makes it worth it.
Click to expand...
Do you realize how the implicit PROGRAMMING that the initial CHOICE of components and environment of the “evolving clock simulation” invalidates the actual conclusion drawn from that simulation?

If you don’t, then you might want to study up a bit on what “programming” means. 🙂

Nice try though.
 
Rainier22 said:
Quote:
I thought I was discussing with someone who really wanted to know. If no answer can satisfy you, are you admitting you are doing all this just to take up others time and to speak at your atheists club on how yo got the Theists. I would honestly have expected more from you as you did sound reasonable, or was that too an illusion.

It’s very difficult to learn something from someone who doesn’t yet even understand the atheistic stance. We’re still in the review book so to speak. It’s pretty frustrating.
Click to expand...
We understand the atheistic stance perfectly well.

Your “refutations” are invariably straw-man attacks on your own illusory imaginings of what you think we believe.

You don’t engage in these converstaions to understand others understandings, but to demean others understandings so that your understandings gain in “stature”.

We understand why you say what you say. You have no intererst in understanding why we say what we say, or even clarifying the basic axioms with which we differ, or even having us understand why you say what you say, but only an interest in mocking (via straw-man disparagement) any understanding that isn’t yours so that yours looks “intelligent” by contrast.

You are not frustrated, except in that your attempts to disparage are so easily handled and make you appear quite comical to an “audience” not sympathetic to your interests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top