Posted on 01/12/2020 5:44:52 AM PST by Kaslin
Skeptics and atheists insist that belief in God is irrational. All too many believers in God, due to the same theological illiteracy affecting the non-believers and unbelievers, lend credence to this charge by way of their inability and/or unwillingness to defend their belief in God.
Thankfully, there has been no short supply of men of genius over the centuries who have shown that there is nothing at all irrational about theism.
In fact, some, like the 12th century theologian and philosopher Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), were at pains to establish that it is atheism that’s irrational.
By way of the “ontological argument” for which he is famous, Anselm tried to show that the atheist doesn’t just happen to be wrong, but is necessarily wrong, for atheism is self-contradictory, and a self-contradiction is always false. For example, since the proposition, “Bachelors are not unmarried men” contradicts the very definition of a bachelor, it doesn’t just happen to be false; it must always be false.
The ontological argument is an argument from definition. Anselm’s version of it goes something like this:
God must be, because it is greater to be than to not be and God is, by definition, the greatest conceivable being.
Consider: Everyone, regardless of whether or not they believe in God, knows that, in theory, God is an infinite and perfect being. Insofar as He is infinite, He is a being without either a beginning or an end. And insofar as He is perfect, He is changeless, for any and every change is for either the better or the worse. But God, given His perfection, can neither regress nor progress. Thus, God must be immutable.
What this means is that God, in theory, can’t be dependent upon anything else. Nothing brought Him into existence (for there couldn’t be a time when He didn’t exist), nothing can alter Him in any way (for He is changeless), and nothing could extinguish His existence.
Simply put, God must exist. He doesn’t just happen to exist, like you, me, and everything else in our experience. God, by definition, in theory, necessarily exists.
So, the atheist is guilty of absurdity: “God does not exist” is the same proposition as, “The Being that necessarily exists, the Being that cannot not exist, does not exist!”
There have been many other arguments, or “proofs,” for God’s existence. What is typically known as “the argument from contingency” is another with a long history.
Whatever is contingent is dependent upon other things for its existence. This would include everything and anything that has ever actually existed within the spatial-temporal universe, as well as almost anything and everything that we could imagine. Human beings; animals; plants; insects; buildings; cars; planets; stars; Superman; King Kong; Santa Claus; unicorns—all are alike contingent upon and limited by other beings.
Now, it is logically impossible for there to exist nothing but contingent beings. As the great Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) noted back in the 13th century, whatever depends upon another for its existence at some juncture did not exist. Think about it: At one point, you did not exist, the laptop upon which I’m typing this did not exist, my home did not exist, the planet Earth did not exist, the sun did not exist, etc. However, what this means is that if the only things to have ever existed are contingent, then since a contingent thing is something that at one point does not exist, then at some point, nothing would have existed.
To repeat: Since whatever depends upon another depends upon that being to bring it into existence, prior to that point it did not exist. Thus, if each thing that ever existed is contingent, then at some point there would’ve been nothing.
But if there was nothing then, there would be nothing now, for from nothing, comes nothing.
Or, if you will, something can’t come from nothing.
Because, then, we know that there are things now, the only conclusion that we can draw is that there is at least one being whose existence is most definitely not dependent upon anything or anyone else.
In order to account for this world of mutually dependent beings, we must look beyond it to a being that exists, not contingently, but necessarily.
And the only being that fits this description is what most people call “God.”
Why is there something rather than nothing? This question cannot be answered by referring to things—contingent things—within the universe. What we call “the universe” is the thing, the “something,” that we’re trying to explain, after all, and the universe is simply the sum total of all of its members, i.e. all of its contingent parts. Whether it is one contingent being or an infinity of contingent beings, whatever is contingent points beyond itself to something that is, ultimately, non-contingent.
The universe is not self-explanatory. In the final analysis, only something beyond the universe, something that is not contingent, can account for it.
The third argument for God’s existence that I’d like to consider here is the argument from morality.
Simply put, morality is objective, it is real, only if God exists. Both theists and atheists have conceded this point.
The 20th century French existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), who was both an atheist and a communist, is insistent upon this point. His whole philosophy presupposes it.
Historically, Sartre observed, atheists have thought it possible “to eliminate God as painlessly as possible.” They have thought that “nothing will have changed if God does not exist.” Sartre sums up the atheist’s position. It is the most wishful of wishful thinking to suppose, as atheists have, that we “will encounter the same standards of honesty, progress, and humanism” upon turning “God into an obsolete hypothesis that will die quietly on its own.”
Without God, human beings have no objective moral standards “to cling to,” “no values or orders” that can “legitimize our conduct.”
In summary: If God is not real, neither is morality.
And how about a combined Marvel superhero, Easter bunny, earth mother of all things? Would such a creature by definition be the same?
I don’t ask this to mock God, but rather to mock the poor logical argument that if we conceive an all-powerful in our mind, but definition the conception must be all powerful and must therefore exist.
The smell of baking bread.
The thought expressed in another way is: The rational conclusion is there is no other course but God
Having arrived at that point, the differences and diversity in thought come into play
Until then....no.
I don’t ask this to mock God
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Would that be the God you seem to not believe in?
How’s this for an argument?
“If you exist, then God must exist”.
Virtual particles on into existence out of nothing.
I don’t ‘conceive’ God in my mind. I ‘perceive’ Him. Big difference. As Romans 1 and David in the Psalms and Job concurred, He has spoken throughout history through the amazing Creation around us all screaming out of His intricate design. Do you honestly think DNA or the atom came into being by willing itself to tell the ‘next-non-failure’ to self-modify? How? by little Post-it’s?
Jesus said that those who seek God (truly honestly seek) will find Him.
The Atheist’ root motive is to deny absolute accountability. Our sinful nature abhors accountability and will craft any vain imagination to prop up that vapor of a structure of deniability.
There is a much simpler proof that God exists.
First. one must define God. The term means many things to different people.
The simpler proof is to experience God first hand. Why read and study the manual on how to ride a bike if you never get on and ride. The Bible is the manual on how to experience God. People keep reading the manual but never go for the ride.
I’m a neuroscientist and have presented and demonstrated on the “Neuroscience of Prayer” and “The science supporting the Bible.”
First, I define God as any level of consciousness that exists above the level that I exist. My Father’s Mansion has many rooms or levels. We are stuck in the basement. Jesus is God as He is in a higher level.
I invite atheists, agnostics and freethinkers to my presentations. I have had hundreds attend and have had many wonderful comments and feedback. I have never had a negative comment.
The human soul is much like an airplane and most people are stuck never getting off the ground. They read and study the airplane, but never get in and fly. They belong to the “Flat Consciousness Society!”
The entire process of the Bible and every other religion can be explained in “frequencies of consciousness” and how to purify and raise the soul frequencies to higher levels. Scientific studies have proven this.
Perception of reality is a function of the frequency of consciousness from which you view it. I merely raise my frequency and the souls of others becomes physical to me. It’s how the mystics of all religions do what they do.
Prayer, meditation and following the guidelines set forth in the Bible are the tools to raise consciousness frequency. Sin is any obstacle to Love that exists within a person’s soul. These are physical to me. In fact, if I walk near a person and merely push the memory of the sin many feet from a person’s physical body, it often knocks them off their feet.
You folks make this way to complex. Socrates understood what I am saying. Plato did not. Many of the Greek pre Socratic philosophers understood it too. It really is simple when you go for the experience rather than the intellectual understanding.
I’ve been reading Maimonedes’ “Guide for the Perplexed”.
Taking me a long time, each section very rich in thought-provoking analysis. And his voluminous references keep sending me off on tangents to further investigate.
But all in all, an excellent apologetic exegis.
Descartes is give credit for the statement, “I think therefore I am.” That really is a dumb statement as it is very circular. If I ask him who it is that “Is doing the thinking?” his reply would be “me”, or “I am.”
My reply would be, “Who is I?”
The human physical body is merely a cocoon for the development of consciousness, like a seed pod does for a plant, until it grows to exist without the seed pod and it sheds it. When you grow spiritually, you begin to perceive directly from consciousness without your 5 physical senses.
It takes some work, but you quickly learn to know the thoughts of others and learn more in epiphanies than reading and studying. In the beginning was the word, and that word was made flesh. A word is merely a metaphor for pattern of consciousness that has meaning. That is how we were made in God’s image. We are seeds of consciousness.
I like your thinking.
There are a lot of folks that think there is only one manual, and one way to ride that bicycle.
I agree with you more—but I never liked reading manuals.
Also, if trees, pants, animals, etc exist, so must God.
The difficulty is that in order to grow you must become “whole” in your masculine and feminine consciousness. This is why Paul stated that it is better to remain single as you go within and find bother to become “whole.” Love is the glue that connects to each aspect of consciousness and stabilize the soul. Love is the glue that holds the soul together.
However, it is ok to marry. If you do the two souls combine in the eyes of God and become “One.” The two souls are held together with Love which allows both of them combined to grow closer to God.
However, it is as though one is the left leg and the spouse is the right leg. They use each other’s souls to stand up. Problem is, when your partner dies your soul has a huge vacancy and you fall over. This is what causes the depression after the loss of a loved one.
I was presenting at a psychology conference and a woman in her 70’s volunteered for a demonstration. I walked back and touched her soul from about 10 feet from her physical body. Her body began swinging wildly in circles. I stopped and explained that when this happens, usually a person has lost a loved one and they haven’t gone through the grieving process.
She replied, “My husband died two weeks ago.”
Two souls are like a catamaran on the turmoil of the ocean, stabilizing each other. When one dies, they become like a canoe or kayak getting tossed around. The most destabilized are those who are still searching for their catamaran partner and have not yet found balance within themselves.
For someone defending the existence of God, this is an extremely poor (irrational) article.
Anselm's ontological argument always seemed weak to me. If I understand it, he says that because I can imagine a God who is greater than anything then he must exist because his existence in reality would be greater than in my imagination. But I can imagine a lot of things that would be greater in reality than in my mind. That doesn't mean they exist. It just doesn't add up for me.
Because they stop at Darwin and never gave any thought to where everything came from
No they don't. Offer proof for your statement.
Simply stating that something is the case is ignorant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.