Pros and Cons of Proving God Exists?

[Mojotronica]

Unless you're a Deist. Then only the Creation and after-life matter. The after-life provides the cosmic balance that compensates for all the suckiness we experience in life. And the evil we experience stems from Original Sin and our ongoing, self-chosen separation from God and the billions of bad choices we and other humans make.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So then the question is proving which God exists?

[Mojotronica]

Or a Gnostic. Then you see God as the Creator, who's also a Son-Of-A-*****, like our god-damned deadbeat Dads who occasionally pay child support and take us to baseball games but get wasted and we have to get them home on bus at age 7. Then one day when we are all grown-up and have a job, Dad asks to borrow $3000 to pay his gambling debt and skips town for a few years. You'll never see that money again! Your love for your Dad was worth less than a $3000 gambling debt to Dad - kind of God.

Then the only thing that God is important for is the Creation, and we look for a Promethean-like step-father figure for our spiritual needs.

[Elok]

Much as I don't want to end up on the other side of this argument, you could actually reconcile that with a God for whom time is basically meaningless. Is it so much more ridiculous to imagine a book meant to be read using a philosophy that wasn't theorized under nearly two millenia later, than to think that he decided to bring salvation to man millenia after man started walking the earth?

Yes and no. The general idea behind the delay, as I understand it, is that God wanted to accomplish everything at what He saw as the proper time. First came the Law to teach us what righteousness is, then (according to Romans) a little interval to figure out that we were incapable of righteousness on our own, and then the redemption to make us capable with divine aid. You could argue that another 2K years before we really understand what's asked of us is no big deal--though this runs into the problem that the Bible, like the Koran after it, is intended to be a final revelation, and moreover you're arguing that basically every Christian before 1850 or so got it all wrong.

However, my big issue here is just the fundamental inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, of what Kid is saying here. More than once he's called us historical revisionists and relativists, not to mention claiming the entire Orthodox and Catholic traditions were just sleazeballs manipulating the gospel to control our minds, we should all do sola scriptura, there's only one true way to read the Gospel and we should strive to be like the original Christians, and so on, and so on...and now he's chiding Plomp for being narrow minded and not considering a POV completely alien to the original context of the scriptures. It's not that I dislike Christian Existentialism--I like Dostoevsky a lot, naturally--but his about-face here is aggravating.

By the by, WRT sin, the original Greek word for it is amartia, which is literally "missing the mark," ie error, falling short of divine perfection. I think Imran was right about us in the sense that sin as a crime in need of punishment is not part of our tradition. It's more of a disease needing a cure.

[kentonio]

Yes and no. The general idea behind the delay, as I understand it, is that God wanted to accomplish everything at what He saw as the proper time. First came the Law to teach us what righteousness is, then (according to Romans) a little interval to figure out that we were incapable of righteousness on our own, and then the redemption to make us capable with divine aid.

Whoah, stop there a second. Why would an omnipotent god need an interval to figure anything out? Or if its humans that needed the interval and then god already knew that the Law wasn't enough, then why wait before delivering the second part, which presumably then meant millions lived and died with a reduced chance of salvation?

You could argue that another 2K years before we really understand what's asked of us is no big deal--though this runs into the problem that the Bible, like the Koran after it, is intended to be a final revelation, and moreover you're arguing that basically every Christian before 1850 or so got it all wrong.

I'd personally extend that to 2011, but then again I'm a bad person.

However, my big issue here is just the fundamental inconsistency, if not hypocrisy, of what Kid is saying here.

Why do you think I didn't want to end up on the other side of the argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whoah, stop there a second. Why would an omnipotent god need an interval to figure anything out? Or if its humans that needed the interval and then god already knew that the Law wasn't enough, then why wait before delivering the second part, which presumably then meant millions lived and died with a reduced chance of salvation?

The later (humans needed the interval to discover it). God wants us to not just to obey (as Kid would have it), but to understand. As for salvation, let me not speak for Elok here, but I believe that eventually all get "saved" as well as the world itself.

[kentonio]

The later (humans needed the interval to discover it). God wants us to not just to obey (as Kid would have it), but to understand. As for salvation, let me not speak for Elok here, but I believe that eventually all get "saved" as well as the world itself.

You're talking about humans as a whole though, and I don't see how any creator figure could view things in that way. If we have free will and are truly unique minds, then surely any journey of understanding must be carried out by the individual not the group?

[Elok]

Whoah, stop there a second. Why would an omnipotent god need an interval to figure anything out? Or if its humans that needed the interval and then god already knew that the Law wasn't enough, then why wait before delivering the second part, which presumably then meant millions lived and died with a reduced chance of salvation?

Presumably. Bearing in mind that Peter says Christ preached to the souls in bondage during His time below. My personal take on it all--which comes with the provisos that we're given no full understanding of how God thinks, and that I'm not a theologian--is that when exactly something happens is not terribly important, one way or another, in God's transtemporal understanding. Christ's work would have been redemptive if nobody had known of it at all; the Incarnation, His life, Passion, Crucifixion and especially Resurrection worked in some sense to resanctify Creation and bridge the gap between humans and God.

Now, how that would work in practice is a more ticklish question. We know that nobody is saved except through Christ, but does that mean you have to learn and accept in life? Apparently not, if Christ preached to the dead below. The bottom line is, we're not given a clear answer, which leads me to believe that a clear answer is not necessary. And I admit it doesn't concern me too much.

[Robert]

Faith in your wife isn't the same as faith in God and you know it. But the question was intended as a jumping off point into a discussion of the different ways we we use word "faith." It's easy to say I don't understand the meaning of the word, since it's meaning changes in different contexts. But that's a cop-out, intended to dismiss whatever I have to say about it, without even attempting to determine what I meant by it. I ignored it when Jon Miller said it, but opted to not ignore it when you repeated it.

But honestly I don't know that it's worth getting into it, since the thread has moved far from my original, simple premise. So I retract the snarky retort and disclaimer.

In fact no...
the faith I have in my wife differs not much from the faith I have in God.
In the meaning of the word, of course.

I have faith that my wife will make me happy, will make my life better, can be trusted, etc.
I have faith in God that he is the one I can trust with my life and that he's the one who can make my life complete. The one who can get me rid of the worst in me. (and the tiny bad bits as well)

It's the same faith. Of course there's a qualitative difference, both between my wife and God, and my faith in my wife and my faith in God, but it's the same type of faith.

It's not about believing that someone exists.

[Robert]

The original premise was:

We take it as a given that fundamentalist Christians have an interest in proving God exists and that the Bible should be read as a literal history/rulebook of/for life.

That's quite a different question you now raise.
God's existence is quite important. Literal interpretations of the Bible are definitely not. (though claiming that everything should be interpreted symbolic or something goes too far as well).

I think that I've already made clear that I do not see the Bible as a literal rulebook for life.
It's not a history book either, though historic happenings are used and retold with the intention to bring a message across. The message is more important then the historic truth in all details. But I do believe nonetheless in a God who interfered in human history and became a part of it. There might not have been an arc of Noah and the creation most probably didn't take 7 days (well, that's at least not what the author of Gen1 wanted to say), but The word became flesh and lived among us..... that's quite important imho.

[Kidlicious]

Ken,

How about boys entering maturity as young teenagers but being told that masturbation or pre-marital sexual activity is sin? That's pretty ****ed up, because its asking children to resist hardwired hormonal impulses.

Some people here are enjoying making me out to be something I'm not.

Anyway, it's better to think about spiritual matters first instead of thinking about things like sex all the time. However people go through different ways of thinking during their lifetime. Teenage boys are going to think about sex a lot. But as their life goes on they come to realize that there are better things to think about.

Some people here are talking about living in the Spirit as though it means you don't have to struggle with sin but it's not like that. Christians have the exact kinds of temptations as others. They also sin just as much as members of other religions. Kiving in the Spirit doesn't mean you don't struggle to do right.

To answer your question, I don't know anyone who tells teenage boys not to masterbaye. Maybe some catholics or free will baptists do. The christians I know see that as a losing battle.

[Robert]

then why wait before delivering the second part, which presumably then meant millions lived and died with a reduced chance of salvation?

The latter is an unfounded assumption which I do not share.
You ask why it wasn't delivered a tad bit easier to humanity? Well, if it was like that then the figurative Adam would not have touched the fruit to start with.

In my opinion the greatest achievement of creation is a being that can act and decided without the creator having to tell him what to say or what to do. A creation with all kinds of natural resources that can be exploited or used by this self thinking creation. To build up great and marvelous things. Eventhough the star systems and the nature of all organisms are most probably more complex and more beautiful and more sophisticated then anything humanity has ever created..... yet again, creating humans who can build sky scrapers, nano-robots, LHC's, nukes, 65" full HD 3d screens, smartphones.......... that's quite an achievement!

Think about that, a computer programmer that can create a program that's able to build a brand new operating system all by itself without any input from the programmer.....

I hear what you're saying.... why so difficult?
It's my question as well.
But in the end it comes down to me that it's that difficult because we're that complex.
It's as with the rich prince who wants the girl to love him, not to buy her love.
Maybe that's what God wants. He wants to win us. He doesn't want us to marry us like Hugh Hefner picks his brides.

[Robert]

To answer your question, I don't know anyone who tells teenage boys not to masterbaye. Maybe some catholics or free will baptists do. The christians I know see that as a losing battle.

recently I have told the youth in my church (I'm church elder for the youth) that masturbation is not a sin.
Not even lusting is a sin. Desiring something that's not yours or something that shouldn't be desired, that's as in. Desiring as in "wishing that a thought would become truth".

Regaring sex before marriage; I'd say that in general a monogamous life would make us all happier. (not saying the opposite, that a non-monogamous person can't be happy!) I'd advise people to have sex on the day that you promise eachother to be monogamous with eachother for the rest your life. And I'd celebrate such a vow with a party.
I wouldn't say that people who 'did it' months before that celebration sinned.
And well.... what's a sin? If someone commits adultery, is it a sin, or did someone just wrecked their own life? If I would cheat on my wife, just have 30 minutes of lust with some other woman...., then that would destroy my life with my family and my kids. Sinning is not the right phrase. Stupid beyond all means is a better word.

[Jon Miller]

In fact no...
the faith I have in my wife differs not much from the faith I have in God.
In the meaning of the word, of course.

I have faith that my wife will make me happy, will make my life better, can be trusted, etc.
I have faith in God that he is the one I can trust with my life and that he's the one who can make my life complete. The one who can get me rid of the worst in me. (and the tiny bad bits as well)

It's the same faith. Of course there's a qualitative difference, both between my wife and God, and my faith in my wife and my faith in God, but it's the same type of faith.

It's not about believing that someone exists.

Good post.

JM

[Kidlicious]

An existentialist POV? Seriously? You think the Bible was meant to be interpreted from an existentialist point of view?

EDIT: You're talking about an philosophy with its roots in nineteenth-century Europe (mostly western, aside from Dostoevsky), formed in reaction to a perceived modern moral crisis resulting from the collapse of old values. And claiming that this philosophy played a significant part in the thought of first-century Hebrew writers establishing the Christian church.

Also, how do you reconcile the Bible being eternally existing, by your interpretation, with the idea of its values being shaped by the philosophy of a bunch of largely secular Europeans?

There's a difference from thinking existentially and believing in existentialism. You don't have to know anything about modern existentialist writing to think existentially. According to Nietzsche there have been people who have thought existentially throughout history. Othey existentialist writers seem to agree. Socrates was a very existentialist thinker for example although he never talked about existentialism as a way of thinking, not like Nietsche and others anyway. And like I said the Hebrew prophets were existentialist thinkers. Kierkegaard called Abraham the Knight of Faith. This means that Abraham is like a Nietsche superman, able to think and act in a way that the masses can not. Kierkegaard said he had never met a person in life like him and he didn't consider himself one. There's a difference between writing about existentialism and thinking existentially.