Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Platos stepchild]

If God isn't omnescient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then there is no other version if God worth our time discussing. That's because the alternatives are nothing but cosmic strongmen. Anyone of which would be reluctant to reveal himself, so as to not provoke an even stronger god.

The churches are certainly doing a bad job of public relations if they cannot teach unbelievers about the God of mercy and justice.

As I've previously argued, there is no proof for God (or disproof, either).

[Sy Borg]

If there is a "God", what makes you think that She could "prove" herself? The assumption in the OP is simply false, as if a God could possibly reveal itself to very lessor entities such as ourselves.

The truth is that God could no more reveal Herself to us that we could reveal ourselves to microbes swimming around in a drop of water. Stick a needle into the water, inject various chemicals, put electric probes into the water to create vibrations - do whatever you like and none of the microbes in the drop of water will ever have the faintest inkling of your existence.

And the same would apply to any "God" trying to "prove" itself to us, but to an even greater degree....

"it" is the term. God is not a crone or large breasted Valkyrie either.

I quite like the conception that Misty outlined, the idea of "God" being love and wisdom - the ideal qualities.

[Wilson]

(Nested quote removed.)


The churches are certainly doing a bad job of public relations if they cannot teach unbelievers about the God of mercy and justice.

As I've previously argued, there is no proof for God (or disproof, either).

I agree with Belinda that any God who is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is not worth our time discussing, or believing in. And any God who is not benevolent enough to clearly reveal himself and give humans hope and comfort is not a very nice God. The Abrahamic God that everybody talks about has human qualities like mercy, justice, fairness, and love - and there may be no proof or disproof of an undefined God, but the chances that an Abrahamic God with those qualities exists is very remote indeed, for the reasons put forth in this thread. Maybe not complete proof, but close.

[Platos stepchild]

The thing about God, being traditionally defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is that the slightest possibility of His existence implies a necessary existence. Conversely, the slightest possibility of God's nonexistence implies a necessary nonexistence. There is, however no way to recognize which "slightest possibility" actually exists. So, proving God's existence becomes a matter of knowing in which "slightest possibility" to believe. But, there is no methodology for establishing such "belief'. This means not only can't we know whether, or not there is a God, but not even God (assuming He does exist) can vouch for Himself.

[Sy Borg]

The Abrahamic God that everybody talks about has human qualities like mercy, justice, fairness, and love - and there may be no proof or disproof of an undefined God, but the chances that an Abrahamic God with those qualities exists is very remote indeed, for the reasons put forth in this thread. Maybe not complete proof, but close.

Ditto Zeus, Odin, Mbombo or Nanabozho.

Still, I feel there's a germ of truth in ancient deities. The ancients were naive and superstitious but they weren't complete whackos.

[Londoner]

I agree with Belinda that any God who is not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent is not worth our time discussing, or believing in.

So does believing in one thing take up time that could otherwise be spent believing in something else? It makes 'believing something' sound like a lifestyle option, like watching TV or going to the gym.

Nor can I see how we could rationally come to the conclusion that something was not worth discussing unless we had already discussed it.

And any God who is not benevolent enough to clearly reveal himself and give humans hope and comfort is not a very nice God.

How could he clearly reveal 'omnipresence', for example? We humans cannot perceive 'everywhere' so we could never get clear evidence of this omnipresent God - the only God you are willing to believe in.

I notice you have also added at least one extra condition for qualification as God. God has to be interested in giving everyone 'hope and comfort'. Why does God have to do this? Because God is required to be 'nice'. So is 'niceness' a sort of meta-God, that God must be subjected to? In which case, surely we should believe in 'Nice'.

But now we have created a paradox about the 'omnis'. If God/Nice is omnipresent etc., then 'niceness' must already be omnipresent. But, since there is nowhere that is 'not-nice', then the description 'nice' does not mean anything, because it applies to everything.

We get into these knots because the notion of the 'omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent' God is incoherent whoever uses it; whether it is used as a reason to believe or as a reason to disbelieve. As to whether the conventional idea of God ever included these attributes, that is another question.

[Belinda]

Wilson #183 wrote:

I agree with Belinda

But I did not write what you said I wrote, and I would not have written what you said I wrote. You maybe misapprehended something that I did write.

Maybe someone else wrote what you said I wrote.

[Wilson]

Wilson #183 wrote:

I agree with Belinda

But I did not write what you said I wrote, and I would not have written what you said I wrote. You maybe misapprehended something that I did write.

Maybe someone else wrote what you said I wrote.

Sorry. That was Plato's Stepchild. A different person entirely. Twenty lashes, self-administered.

[Atreyu]

[ How could he clearly reveal 'omnipresence', for example? We humans cannot perceive 'everywhere' so we could never get clear evidence of this omnipresent God - the only God you are willing to believe in.

Exactly. The "God" that most people subscribe to could no more reveal Itself to us that we could reveal ourselves to a quark or a lepton....

[Metaphysical Love]

I find it difficult to "jump" in on this issue with so many previous responses... but I believe God makes himself spiritually "evident" (proves himself, perhaps is another way to phrase it) in the life of the believer or devotee. That is, in the practice of behaviors such as prayer, attendance of sacred rituals and worship (like in the Christian belief of sharing Communion and eating that Spiritual Supper), or in more general practices of singing spiritual songs and so on... the idea is that God "proves" himself, or manifests the divine eternal "essence" of his being through there practices which are the hallmarks of religion.

I think there is a reason why historically most spiritual "guides" or teachers, ministers, Rabbis, Gurus and so on have always recommended a relatively steady set of practices: spiritual songs, prayers, rituals, and so on. I believe they all recommend these things primarily because they help a believer "manifest" that notion of the Presence of the Divine in their lives and in them, and as such, is sufficient proof. Furthermore, it is sufficient proof because the notion of simply having an all-powerful being (or at least, a graciously much superior being/reality simply appear before oneself) is too overwhelming.

And I've met some believers (theists) who state that the real feeling of the Presence of God really manifests itself in reflecting on or meditating on how God is the constant and unfailing "supporter" in our lives, like the air we breathe.

All these notions however, I have not yet linked together with notions of the problem of evil, but this is a good start. I think the real issue is that many people do not simply "jump" into religion in a pure or humble sense (not in a fanatical sense). They simply continue doubting and questioning, but do not ever "try" to engage into a dialogue or relationship (in a spiritual sense) with that more ethereal reality which is God and the Divine. A truly radical 'a posteriori' philosopher would probably launch himself straight into experimental attendance of worship services, Catholic Masses, Hindu Pujas, Buddhist Meditations, and so on... because he thinks he cannot know/understand until he experiences it at least as a starting point.

[Lambert]

If there is a "God", what makes you think that She could "prove" herself? The assumption in the OP is simply false, as if a God could possibly reveal itself to very lessor entities such as ourselves.

The truth is that God could no more reveal Herself to us that we could reveal ourselves to microbes swimming around in a drop of water. Stick a needle into the water, inject various chemicals, put electric probes into the water to create vibrations - do whatever you like and none of the microbes in the drop of water will ever have the faintest inkling of your existence.

And the same would apply to any "God" trying to "prove" itself to us, but to an even greater degree....

All we really need to do is consider that we look with our eyes and see with our mind. So seeing God is a matter of perception and then let me add that we should never look for a she because we are the she in relation to God. So really then, God is the bigger plus in us and that is where the subservient role play is needed to see.

Not sure if you are familiar with Descartes' inspired moment when he willfully tried to be vacant and kind of got shafted when he started thinking again. This would be where he needed to raise the ax on his ego so he would not start thinking again.

-- Updated September 8th, 2015, 10:43 am to add the following --

Oops, let me add that this is where the famous phrase by Allen Watts (?) "beyond theology" comes in.

[Belinda]

Lambert wrote:

All we really need to do is consider that we look with our eyes and see with our mind. So seeing God is a matter of perception

Is a non sequitur.

The remainder of your post is mystical . Mysticism is not for the majority of the people the majority of whom cannot do mysticism.

For those who can do mysticism let them do it. For those who find God in religious rituals that's fine. For those who find God is a practical metaphor for some desirable ethic such as justice, peace, mercy, love , that is all very good.

However none of those is sufficient in itself . God ideas must be subjected to humane scrutiny otherwise there is no brake on extremism, or fatuousness.

The title question is a non-starter as there is no such God that needs, wants or can "prove himself". If there were he would not be God but would be a worldly power.

[Lambert]

Lambert wrote:

All we really need to do is consider that we look with our eyes and see with our mind. So seeing God is a matter of perception

Is a non sequitur.

The remainder of your post is mystical . Mysticism is not for the majority of the people the majority of whom cannot do mysticism.

For those who can do mysticism let them do it. For those who find God in religious rituals that's fine. For those who find God is a practical metaphor for some desirable ethic such as justice, peace, mercy, love , that is all very good.

However none of those is sufficient in itself . God ideas must be subjected to humane scrutiny otherwise there is no brake on extremism, or fatuousness.

The title question is a non-starter as there is no such God that needs, wants or can "prove himself". If there were he would not be God but would be a worldly power.

Exactly Belinda and then if you consider that our body is merely our body it would follow that we are not our body in the same that we are not our red hair (or even blond hair, for that matter). So the 'I' in which we are is the missing link in our life and that is what we call God that so is the unknown part of us. This would be where intuition is home that I call memory of our soul as the unknown part of us, and that is the reason why we even can be looking for God as the unknown part in life. To say the least, we all can identify with the concept God for this reason.

This is why Dostoevski could say that truth is real (in truth and beauty) because it is prior to us and therefore is real. This would have nothing to do with 1+1=2 but the fact that we are incarnate beings with a soul as deep as up to 1000 years, so they say, and therefore knowledge is prior to us and all we need to do is find out what we are all about = know thyself and therefore "to thine own self be true" so that someday you may gain access to that sacred (?) door (and that has nothing to do with a needle or nobody would ever find it for sure).

So the secret now is to take up residence in our subconscious mind and be a scavenger there to see 'who is who' and 'what is what' in our life, which then is what the royal banquet is all about where most certainly bastards are not welcome, as you can well understand simply because they are not lineage related in us.

And yes, humane scrutiny is needed to reach the end of our world in which we think that we are, while in fact we are not and never will be. That is exactly what is what the ax is about, or beyond theology, as it can be said, because the 'he' who we are looking for is not there for us as 'human' and that is exactly what 'beyond theology' means.

So beyond theology means beyond reason and therefore a new emergence must be made, this time from the nucleus of our father's sperm where our life was first conceived and that so is what metamorphosis is about. So naturally, the inner urge for this event is native to the animal man (and therefore beyond reason for sure, wherefore then also the end of our world must be found).

And I have nothing against God or against churches, but tell me please, what gives some people the urge the spread the Gospel and in particular the so called "good news" part of the gospel. And do you think it is mere human desire to do that? -- as in freely go bonkers on world-wide TV?

[Vijaydevani]

I think it is time some one asked, does God really make any real difference to the world? So many religions, all trying to prove their God is the right one, praying, asking, pleading, reveling in a few miracles here and there. Except for the psychological fulfillment, what purpose does God really serve on earth? What real change does God bring about? If a Christian converts to another religion or a person of another religion converts to Christianity, what difference does God make to his life? An atheist finds religion, or a religious man becomes an atheist. What changes? Are we just supposed to live our lives in fear of the consequences in an after life? What does that even mean? How does that even help? So again, other than the psychological part of life, what is God's contribution to reality or if you prefer, THIS life, in case you believe in an afterlife?

[Fanman]

Vijaydevani:

Can anybody who believes in God answer you're questions, without you disagreeing with them, if their answers were to promote theism, or be theistic in nature? What's "psychological fulfillment?" What would you call, fulfillment of Biblical prophecy?