What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

[Flip McWho]

I don't think the point behind a religious ethical code is God. The point behind it is for people to act "properly," whatever that means. God is there to enforce the code, by retributions in various forms.

Where does the religious ethical code derive from? God. Act properly in accordance with how God defines properly. God, as it so happens, is perfectly placed to act as judicator as well. The best judicator possible, God can see you at all times and knows everything you do. God is deeply entwined with Gods ethical code.

The Argument from Morality attempts to prove the existence of God from the existence of a moral code.

Yeah I'm not trying to prove Gods existence from morality.

God does not need our worship, for whatever reason he wants and desires our worship.

A God that preaches equality (before god) and humility wants and desires our worship? How very equal and humble of God.

God may know all that is to happen, but he cannot decide for us the choices that we may make in life. Christians have came up with different ways of resolving this conflict, some say that we make the choice even though the choice has already been decided for us, others, that God sees all possible futures.

Not to mention here that its debateable whether omniscience also has to include the ability to know the future as well.

But I do respect your opinions, I think we and some others all recognise the subtle pleasure of a good brain joust!

Mental masturbation

I was an astronomy major. I can sit, and I have for hours off my porch and look up and just wonder. Now I would call it the indwelling of the spirit inside of me, but then I could not account for why I have always responded to these things. Saying that God created all of these makes me curious to find out what he made, with the heavens being so vast.

Fair enough, to each their own. I love the night sky. I also sit and love to look up. The night sky's a beautiful thing. It's so complex.

[QUOTE]Suppose God could change morally, what would that mean? That would mean that we could not trust his word in anything, that he was not omniscient, and we would be left with the important question of why we should believe God over anyone else.[/QUOTE

Aye that's my point. I was kinda wondering if God had to have a attribute of omniscience through being the creator. If God can change morally then possibly not.

If God were not omniscient, then he would not be omnipotent, since both of them work together. A God that could increase his knowledge, could increase the effectiveness and his efficiency, since he would in a sense, learn how to use his powers better. You would have to say that God would gain in power, and is not in fact omnipotent.

Not necessarily. Omniscience well have no bearing on Gods omnipotence if they do not affect Gods ability to manipulate the world. I imagine this can mostly only arise through God and ethics. Referring to my previous point if God can change morally it implies God does not know everything of an ethical nature. God can still be all powerful, God just may not be fully aware of how to use this power ethically. But then you have to wonder if God has any need for ethical thought. Gods ethical system seems to be based upon , getting people to worship God, getting society to live co-operatively, and 'nature'. The point here is I'm attempting to make a distinction between the different theatres of knowledge that must necessarily make up Gods omniscience. For example, Gods ethical knowledge can change without affecting Gods ability to be all powerful in the universe.

That being said, you say that God changes from the New Testament to the Old Testament. I believe that there is a change in how he deals with man, but that has to do with the atonement, something that was not there in the Old Testament. God has not changed, but because of Christ, our standing with God has.

Ok, yeah I can see that.

Concerning Original Sin -

I don't see how it can compare with the German example. But I do get your explanation of original sin. I don't think I quite understood it prior so thanks for clearing that up.

The only answer I can think of to your question as to why does God exist, is that he does. No one made him, if he is eternal and uncreated, he just is. Why else would he say that his name is I am?

Couldn't that same logic hold to the universe itself without God?

Why is it necessary to have proof outside of the Bible? Even if you do not believe in Christ, the bible does provide substantial evidence in favour of Christ as the Son of God. Certainly, some of what is said targets the earlier prophecies in the Old Testament fulfilled by Christ that the Jews believed would signify the coming of the Messiah, but that is not the best evidence.

The best evidence in favour of Christ as the Son of God, is that he died on the cross, killed by the Romans, buried and sealed him in the grave, going so far as to guard the tomb. And three days later the tomb was empty, the stone rolled away. If Christ rose, as the disciples claimed, then he told the truth when he claimed earlier that he was in fact the Son of God. If he did not, then he was just another man, a holy prophet, but just a man.

That presumes that I consider the bible as a sufficient source, which I do not. It's too biased towards the matter to be proof.

Well, you have hit the main trouble I have - if god is as omnipotent as we currently has come up to, then his enjoyment must be equal, and then no matter how much we humans tries to improve this by our worshipping him, it won't change.

How does Gods enjoyment of something affect his omnipotence? God does not become more powerful simply because God is enjoying something.

That is to say that I consider morality to be the product of an emotional reaction. As a result, the seeking of an internally consistent moral holism is a fruitless and irrelevant pursuit, because that does not reflect the nature of morality... you might say that morality needs to be consistent, and my response would be "why? I think it not".

I tend to agree with you here though I disagree with the consistency part. A moral code deviod of consistency is simply doing what you like. Introduce consistency you have a code. Also when dealing with morality at the collective level (eg state) its nice to have consistency.

quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The JW's is the only on that says 'a god', implying that the Son is somehow not the same as god the Father.


The Trinity concept is an invention of the Church AFAIK.

Yeah it is. Though they are all the same God. God the son = God the Father = the Spirit. BK mentions that the JW's are implying that God the son is different to God the father.

Yet, the Christian god is infinite.

Think about it for a minute. Infinite. Do you care if a water molecule in your body has a bad day, or when a red blood cell gets chewed up in your liver when it reaches the its end of life?

Just multiply this difference by infinity - why would an infinite being care about us?

Exactly. And if you believe that God cares about us theres at least some thought to the superiorty of man.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


One late Autumn day in 1999 when I was walking around in Mongkok (a district in Hong Kong), I suddenly heard Pavarotti singing. Surely Pavarotti could not have been in the area, and I could find no shops around playing his tape or CD.

I am sure you did hear a voice. The only question is where the voice came from.

It did not come from the 4 boys that were there. They were yelling at each other to find something to pull me out.
The voice used my first name Joseph and not Joe. My cousins and the other two boys alway called me joe.

The words were "Joseph it is not your time, but you must fight. Joseph you must fight. This last sentence was louder then the first.

[Flip McWho]

The mind does strange things when the pressure is on.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

The Trinity concept is an invention of the Church AFAIK.

It is indeed- it is not to be found in the Old or New Testaments.


It first began to be formulated or promulgated in the third century a.d. . Trinitarian Christians have been quite assiduous in persecuting Unitarians- the Roman Catholic Church and its enemy John Calvin could even cooperate to get rid of the theological threat of Michael Servetus, unorthodox anti-trinitarian, scientist and theologian:

The secular officials were unable to establish that Servetus was an immoral disturber of the public peace. Nevertheless, he made damaging theological statements in the course of a written debate with Calvin. The Council of Geneva, after receiving the advice of churches in four other Swiss cities, convicted Servetus of antitrinitarianism and opposition to child baptism. Calvin asked that Servetus be mercifully beheaded. The Council insisted he should be burned at the stake.

Spectators were impressed by the tenacity of Servetus' faith. Perishing in the flames, he is said to have cried out,

"O Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have pity on me!"

Farel, who witnessed the execution, observed that Servetus, defiant to the last, might have been saved had he but called upon "Jesus, the Eternal Son."

A few months later Servetus was again executed, this time in effigy, by the Catholic Inquisition in France.

http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

[Bill3000]

A few months later Servetus was again executed, this time in effigy, by the Catholic Inquisition in France.

Wait, what!? He was executed twice?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Bill3000


Wait, what!? He was executed twice?

Come on- one execution just wasn't enough for such a pernicious heretic.

Belt and braces time for European religious hatred- Servetus gets it from the Holy Roller CattleTruck Church and the Castanets of Geneva. When these guys dislike you all bets are off and enmities between them forgotten.

You gotta die! die! die! Unitarian.

[Bill3000]

Huh, I just read an article on wikipedia about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effigy

An effigy is a representation of a person, especially in the form of sculpture: "the coin bears an effigy of Lincoln". Other examples include a George W. Bush or Guy Fawkes made of straw and old clothing.

In some religious rituals, an effigy is used to represent an undesired person or spirit. The effigy is burned as a sign of the participants' shared intent to banish the represented element from their lives.

Political effigies serve a broadly similar purpose on political demonstrations or annual community rituals such as that held in Lewes, on the south coast of England. In Lewes, important figures in current affairs are burned on bonfire night, alongside an effigy of the Pope.

Hmm... That sure is an interesting custom.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Not really. Egoism is the idea that all of our motivations are self-interested, in other words, apparently altruistic behaviour is egoistic in terms of motivations, whether they are subconscious or conscious. It even extends to behaviour that is good for the species, so in its strictest sense, it's a motivation for our behaviour in order to look after the genome.

You cannot go directly from egoism and or altruism, to a moral theory.

Okay, so what's supporting the assertion that altruism is self-interested? This sounds like one of those infamous "bald assertions." Acting in the interest of the species...why? If it's an evolutionarily developed instinct, it would naturally propagate by its usefulness to the whole species, but that still leaves us asking, as individuals, why we should bother. Xenophobia may very well be a survival instinct useful to the species, but it's generally condemned. So, what's our motivation for listening to the instinct of cooperation/altruism/egoism?

UR: That passage is John 1:1, like I said. WRT to the trinity and invention, there are a couple of things to be said.

First, it's a pretty early "invention." "O Gladsome Light," a popular hymn dating to the first century, mentions "father, son, and holy spirit, one god." Second, despite what's often claimed about sola scriptura, remember that the Church does in fact predate the New Testament. The NT was selected and authorized by the council of Nicea. It's hard to argue that the book has priority over the author (the trinity had clearly been "invented" by the time of Constantine, right?). Third, the Gospel of John has several chapters near the end in which Christ describes the Holy Spirit's mission in detail. He makes the HS sound like His equal, at the least...

[Urban Ranger]

Hi Joseph,

Originally posted by Joseph
It did not come from the 4 boys that were there. They were yelling at each other to find something to pull me out.

The voice used my first name Joseph and not Joe. My cousins and the other two boys alway called me joe.

The words were "Joseph it is not your time, but you must fight. Joseph you must fight. This last sentence was louder then the first.

I believe you did have an unusual and interesting experience. I did too.

On occasions I hear a voice (a different one on each occasion) calling out my name. Sometimes I am on a busy street. Sometimes I am in my own flat. Sometimes the voice is male. Sometimes it is female. Sometimes it is old. Sometimes it is young.

I am sure I hear the voice as well.

The only question is whether this voice comes from the outside or from the inside.

Okay, so sometimes it's my mom calling me However most of the time either nobody's around or I could see nobody around that knows me.

It's quite eerie, but I just interpret that as a hallucination. So you see, the important part is your own interpretation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
UR: That passage is John 1:1, like I said.

Here's John 1:1, KJV

1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; )
1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

I don't see where it may imply that there's more than one god.

[Dis]

If I got laid within the next 24 hours, I would believe there is a god.

That's a semi-serious response. It would basically take me witnessing a miracle for me to believe in god. I just can't go on what other people say.

And to further that reasoning. I believe it would be impossible to convince everyone that there is a god. As not everyone can witness a miracle in their own eyes. Even if I video taped it.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Dis
If I got laid within the next 24 hours, I would believe there is a god.

Keep us posted.

[Dis]

didn't happen. (although in all fairness, I didn't go outside in the last 24 hours- I meant to go drinking tonight, but didn't feel like it)

It's just hard to believe in miracles unless you have seen them happen. That was my point.

[Vince278]

God helps those who help themselves.

[Urban Ranger]

What? I help myself and God wants to take the credit? Bah.