Proving God to a Skeptic

[Kane98969]

Just yesterday I was walking down the street on my way to go help my brother move into his new house when I thought of a concept that I believe would be great at explaining the existence of God logically to a Skeptical person.  

I haven't tried this yet, so give me your feedback:

If humans are essentially made of the same units of energy(atomic/subatomic structures etc.) as a flower or tree, wouldn't it also be true that the fundamental dynamic force behind both energies would also be the same?

At its most simple level, God is just that which ties my personal experience with that of the rest of the universe.

[Tom]

When you say that both of us are made of atoms and so is that tree over there, unless you are saying atoms are God it does not work for me. Or electricity is God or light is God or heat is God or whatever else like that.

[karnautrahl]

Maybe you don't need to use the word God then? A unifying force that has intelligence by it's very nature doesn't need to have a moniker attached to it that causes so many people to have too many assocations with the word.
In me I can't accept "God", and most of my reasons are internal, emotional things to do with structured dogma. I could live with some other definitions perhaps, universal intelligence or something less "personal deity" like but that is just me. I don't "accept" a higher power/authority right now because I believe in total self responsibility. That's where I am now

[Nostic]

Just yesterday I was walking down the street on my way to go help my brother move into his new house when I thought of a concept that I believe would be great at explaining the existence of God logically to a Skeptical person.  

I haven't tried this yet, so give me your feedback:

If humans are essentially made of the same units of energy(atomic/subatomic structures etc.) as a flower or tree, wouldn't it also be true that the fundamental dynamic force behind both energies would also be the same?

At its most simple level, God is just that which ties my personal experience with that of the rest of the universe.

I think that if you told that to a skeptic, they would just think of the force as something impersonal, like any other force in the universe.
I don't know how some people can make it through the world and not believe in God. Funny thing is, I  used to one of those people  .
Just the thought of there not being a God... I don't even think I'd see the point of taking my next breath.
But anyhow, I think, in time, God reveals Himself to all people. Some people will take a long winding path to Him, while others will take the express route. I think it's best to just leave people to their own growth, and just be the best example of a "believer" that you can be. There are those who need the experience of not believing in God in order to fulfill their unique purpose in life. If everyone were a believer perhaps we'd miss out on a great deal of experiential knowledge that we couldn't have attained otherwise. For example, maybe you need to know what it feels like to not believe in God so that, in time, you can achieve a greater appreciation for what His existence truly means.

[no_leaf_clover]

I would be with Karnautrahl on everything he said . Something conscious and intelligent designed the universe, I'm sure, but "God" has christian connotations that I'd rather not associate myself with. Self-responsibility all the way  

Why would you want to convince a skeptic that God exists anyway?

[Logic]

It is equally logical to prove that god exists that way, to disprove that god exists in the same manner. Associating existance with god as a creator has little evident connection, aside from religious teachings.

Why do you wish to prove god to a skeptic, they are allowed to believe what they wish.

[Kane98969]

Thanks for the feedback,

I agree with Nostic that people each have their own path in life.  When the thought came to me it was so inspirational that I suppose to myself it seemed like it made perfect sense and to me it did. Maybe the personal epiphany that I experienced was just validating the things that Ive been thinking and feeling for the last while which is why it rang so true to me.

[Gandalf]

But anyhow, I think, in time, God reveals Himself to all people. Some people will take a long winding path to Him, while others will take the express route. I think it's best to just leave people to their own growth, and just be the best example of a "believer" that you can be

its funny how people can have radically different world views.. Like with Nostic for example, where now he feels he cannot understand how people go through life and NOT believe in god... i am the same but in reverse!
I started off not being sure what 'god' meant.. then went through all the standard religious definitions.. and nowadays I have discarded the term.. now I am amazed that people need this concept of 'god' (in the standard monotheistic notion) in order to get through their lives.. I have felt so much more free after i saw through this belief construct (imo)....

While there may well be intelligence behind the construction of our universe, this doesnt make me jump to the concept of 'god' in the standard sense.. in fact all this standard notion of 'god', all the capital letter stuff (eg Him, He etc)... this is all to human imo and I've never felt happy with it.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs of course.
Interestingly.. 'non-believers' in 'god' assume that someday the 'believers' will come round to their way of thinking, while the believers, like Nostic just pointed out, assume that god will eventially make his presense felt in some way in 'non-believers' lives,  ie  they come round to the believers way of thinking.

Of course, in reality, if you take case studies of everyone, you will find that everyone varies hugely: you will get people who reject this concept and do so all their lives, just as you will get people who were once 'non-believers' who change and hold this belief to the end of their days.. in addition you will get others who vary over time and go from one end to the other.

For me I dislike the term 'god' as I find it inaccrurate, out of date and projects all the negative connotations that i feel we are trying to get away from.. as you have noticed, if i have to use it I put inverted commas round it, thus: 'god'.

Each to their own!

Douglas

[Telos]

If humans are essentially made of the same units of energy(atomic/subatomic structures etc.) as a flower or tree, wouldn't it also be true that the fundamental dynamic force behind both energies would also be the same?

If God was this force, then it would follow that God sins on a regular basis, kills innocent children, rapes, and tortures, among other things that humans do.

[Nostic]

I just want to be clear that I have no interest in the, what you might call, standardized conception of God. I just use the name "God" because it is convenient, and it's a word that I'm used to. I have no interest in the God of religion, or Christianity, or any holy book per se.
I always found religion and church to be dull and stupid. But even though I grew-up with the nonsense, I see no reason to reject the idea of the existence of a God-like entity. I do, however, reject the religion that I grew-up with.
I do think that God is beyond all conception, but my human mind likes to think of Him as Father; Her as Mother. The idea that there could be no greater, God-like, Father/Mother-like being in existance... that's just a possibility that is truly hard for me to imagine. And I'm not sure I'd even want to exist if that were the case.

[Kane98969]

God, The Tao, Gaia, The Sacred Spirit, Allah... to me its one and the same.

[Telos]

God, The Tao, Gaia, The Sacred Spirit, Allah... to me its one and the same.

Those names all suggest different standards by which to make moral judgments and ethical decisions. So I'm curious, do you have a standard system of ethics, or do you believe everything depends on the situation?

[Gandalf]

no problem nostic...
just when you use capitals 'Him', 'He' and so on.. it just  looks very much like someone coming from  the 'bowing and scraping' definition viewpoint... also the thing about 'god showing Himself in peoples lives' line kind of smacked of that too.

Telos.
Well, the above list is concerning itself with systems of morality which use 'god' as their verifier so to speak, which is one thing I dont like.
I prefer secular ethics in the style of the Greek philosophers. Thats the way to go.. a sytem of morality that works because its a logical way for people to live together well socially... although finding the *best* system or at least the *least worst* may yet take some time.. Of the modern secualr philosophies.. i quite like Kant, although he has some problems with his theory as ever, but you could certainly live your life quite well via his system (ok apart from the 'enquiring murderer' issue!)

The only problem is, this is too much for the vast majority of the population who need something simpler..hense the 'divine command theory' which everyone can follow using the simple 'do this or god will kick your butt' routine... this is enough for most people... so i guess it serves a valid purpose for the majority.

As an aside, the one thing the religious morality crowd doesnt like to admit however, is that the biggest advances in ethics and human rights/values to occur in the past couple of hundred years have been through secular ethics... secular ethics has shaped the modern world since the enlightenment... for example, it was only through secular ethics that the notion of slavery was seriously challenged and in fact ovecome, something that christianity never managed to do.. in fact christianity actually reinforced slavery as an institution... even viewing god's relationship with his flock via the 'master/slave relationship...
ie original greek version of Pauls' epistles, he uses the term 'slave' in relation to god who is the 'dominus' (master)...
this was too strong for english translaters who changed it to 'servant' of the 'lord' which is now commanly used..
not that i think an outmoded aristocratic/autocratic model of religion really helps us in a society where democracy is our highest secular ideal... god isnt very democratic!
'Kingdom' of god?.. no thanks.

[Telos]

Gandalf, I also prefer ethical systems that work, as you say, "because its a logical way for people to live together well socially."

But religious ethics needn't take the form of a "because God says so!" and have validation through words in scripture, or some other garbage. Thomas Acquinas and Catholic doctrine of Natural Law are a good example. Acquinas was an avid reader of the Greeks, especially Aristotle, and it really shows. In fact, I dislike many Catholic doctrines because they are too rooted in old Greek philosophies. For instance, the transubstantiation of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood is heavily dependent on Plato's theory of forms, which I see as just an artifact of the use of language.

Natural Law ethics pretty much just says that we should do what nature intended us to do. It can work outside of a theistic context with only the assumption that their is purpose in nature. For example, sexual reproductive systems exist in nature for the purpose of sexual reproduction. To use them in way that does not fulfill this purpose is unnatural and, therefore, unethical. This includes masturbation, homosexuality, and contraceptives. That is, according to Thomistic Natural Law, anyways.

But that was back when knowledge of nature was very limited. Today, we have the science of genetics, and if a "homosexual gene" is found, then homosexuals are actually acting in accordance to their physical nature. But why would something like that evolve in nature if it was contradictory to growth of life? Is there no point in nature? Do we really know anything?

I also like Kant, but add a dash of Natural Law and you get Stoicism, I think, which is almost totally forgotten in the modern age and very misunderstood (it's not emotionless!).

[Gandalf]

Telos yeah your right.... neoplatonism GREATLY influenced early christian theology.. in fact it WAS the theology... eg the whole trinity concept only developed inthe 3rd centuryAD and it was directly influcenced via neo-platonism.. and you find the early christian theologans didnt have a problem with that at all.. in fact many of them were neo-platonists that converted..
thats how christianity won over neo-platonism.. christianity absorbed all the best bits of it and enriched the rather dull simple monotheism of the original.

Douglas

[Frank]

"... But why would something like that evolve in nature if it was contradictory to growth of life? Is there no point in nature? Do we really know anything?

Perhaps a tad off-topic in my reply, but just to answer your question, when we decide to come here, let's say, we tend to create three parallel focuses. Although people can have more parallels, they would normally opt for three. Heterosexual male, heterosexual female and either a male or a female homosexual. This is the basic arrangement.

Reason being we are here, primarily, to explore our emotions and feelings concerning our sexuality. Within subjective reality there are no emotions, and there is no male and female. These are belief constructs that we have created for the purposes of our experience and we bring these constructs to life, as it were, in an objective sense, so we can experience them. There is no right way or wrong way as regards sexual orientation. We do not need to procreate for the "survival" of our "species"! It is all just a construct that we have created.

Yours,
Frank

[You]

If you define God, Allah, the Tao, and all other deities by their religious texts, they are all VERY different.

They are not the same.

The 'God' the main poster is referring to does not seem to be specifically a Christian god, so 'sinning' is irrelevant. Besides, God can't sin, sin is denying God, and he can't very well deny his own will. In the bible God does many things he commands His people not to, and provides exceptions to those rules when He favours the outcome of them breaking it.

As to the main post, I do not understand the argument. How does the fact that all things are composed of more and more similar things at greater magnification tell us that there is some kind of sentient or semi-sentient force of creation and will in this world? It makes no sense. Not a good way to convince a skeptic at all if he can't understand you.

[Serapis]

Why not force the skeptic to disprove God to you?

After all, the evidence of Creation is on your side.

[Telos]

Why not force the skeptic to disprove God to you?

After all, the evidence of Creation is on your side.

You should really look at this book:

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15754

[beavis]

Why not force the skeptic to disprove God to you?

I'll disprove god when you disprove that Santa Clause exists. You insult my beliefs by not taking the lyrics of "rudolph the red nosed reindeer" as gospel.

After all, the evidence of Creation is on your side.

The evidence of Santa Clause is on my side. He's been talked about for hundreds or thousands of years. And dont forget he can see everything you do, naughty or nice. Dont you see Santa in everything around you? Its obvious if you have faith.

At its most simple level, God is just that which ties my personal experience with that of the rest of the universe.

Then god would be my chair, shoes, air, and everything else around me. But I already believe in my shoes. Your statement is meaningless.

[Telos]

I like Santa a lot too, you guys want to make a religion to worship him? That would be wicked.

Isn't that what we already have? No, seriously, aren't we raised to worship Santa as the lord of moral abundance? He knows who is naughty and who is nice, and if you're nice you get good things.

I knew Santa didn't exist immediately when I saw my sister, perhaps the naughtiest child I had ever met, have the same quality of presents that everyone else did. My life had been a lie up until that point.

[Nostic]

I know bevis was just trying to make a point, but his Santa Clause argument was kind of a low blow, LOL. Actually, I think Santa might be based on an actual person. Think about it... if you were advanced enough to transport your physical body wherever you want to go, and had the ability to manifest things in the physical... you could be Santa Clause your damned self.

[Tom]

Why not just show God to an atheist and get it over with all at once? What is the point in making a gradual process over it which can be argued about? If you have had an experience you can convey it. It is only those other preachers who have never experienced God who try to convince other people to resolve their own doubts who will have a problem with this. Not anyone here, right?

[BoscosFriend]

as for as i know, everything exists because of previous causes. actually i believe that everything is the cause of everything else. think about a peice of paper. what caused this paper to come into existance? a tree, a tool to cut down the tree, a man to operate the tool. water, rain and sun, so that the tree could survive, the earth has to exist too. just think about it, evrything the man that cut down the tree expirinced in his life prior to cutting down that tree was the cause for him to cut down the tree, the peice of papers existance was caused by the invention of the tool that was used to cut the tree down, its existants was caused by the life of the person who invented the tool. it just keeps going. the amount of causes that took place to bring the peice of paper into existance is so ublievable, but its true and there is no denying it. i believe that evrything exists because i exist, and i exist because evrything else exist. the concept of god just doesnt make any sense to me.

[karnautrahl]

circular logic never proved anything.