What Is The Best Argument For The Existence Of God?

[bcuzbcuz]

It truly (seriously and honestly) baffles me that people cannot see the proof given by Alma for the existence of God. If one looks at it just like Alma proposes one cannot possibly question. So then, why do so many question regardless? We must be surrounded by idiots! Its all I can think of.

If there are 6,000,000 active Mormons in a world population of 7,246,000,000 people, that means that 99.02% of the world are idiots.. Does that seem about right for you?

[LOSTONE]

I don’t need to prove God is real to believe God is real. If someone wants me to believe God isn’t real, They need to prove that to me. So far, no one had offered any practical or logical proof that God isn’t real. And to those who say the “ Big Bang ” is proof God isn’t real, that doesn’t hold any proof. The big bang is a theory only. Yes, it’s still a theory and not actual fact based on NASA most updated information on it. A theory isn’t proof. It’s just a thought based on the available knowledge. And even if the big bang was fact and not just a theory, it proofs nothing because what caused the big bang? If the big band really did happen, if was because God made it happen. So I believe God is real and have not had any evidence to proof to me otherwise.

[Rob Osborn]

If there are 6,000,000 active Mormons in a world population of 7,246,000,000 people, that means that 99.02% of the world are idiots.. Does that seem about right for you?

What does that have to do with the topic? People from all walks of life, all different faiths, etc, can see the Creators hand in all things great and small and know we arent here by chance.

[Rob Osborn]

DNA as a language that makes up a book of instructions to me is the greatest evidence for a Creator. Nature on its own is just absolutely inadequate to come up with DNA.

[Robert F. Smith]

It truly (seriously and honestly) baffles me that people cannot see the proof given by Alma for the existence of God. If one looks at it just like Alma proposes one cannot possibly question. So then, why do so many question regardless? We must be surrounded by idiots! Its all I can think of.

Alma is not giving a proof, he is extrapolating from some good indicators, but he does not have the scientific sophistication or logical rigor to derive an actual proof.  In other words, he is inferring the existence of God from the wonders of nature.  However, he already believes in God for other, more tenable reasons.

[Robert F. Smith]

DNA as a language that makes up a book of instructions to me is the greatest evidence for a Creator. Nature on its own is just absolutely inadequate to come up with DNA.

I like the argument from design also, even though you have seen many on this Board reject it out of hand.  This has a variant in the fine-tuning argument, which I also consider valid.  DNA simply does not appear to have created itself spontaneously (archebiosis), nor can any scientist explain or demonstrate how such a fundamental biological blueprint for life could have come into existence, except via the work of a brilliant designer.  The ultimate question, of course, is how brilliant?  As many an atheist admits, there are godlike beings in the universe -- sentient beings so advanced that they make us look like bacteria in comparison.

[Robert F. Smith]

The question, if someone wanted to ask, would be basically this: Does God exist? From that point it becomes a question of what God is, and anyone who understands what God is, and is honest, must answer in the affirmative. It is as simple as that.

Maybe you could do someone a favor and explain to them what God is, in simple terms, so that they can understand. Like, the supreme kind of being among all that exist.

Immanuel Kant dealt with this question a long time ago:

 

In "Section IV. Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God," drawn from his Critique, Kant addresses the logical problem of existential import. How do we talk or think about things without supposing, in some sense at least, that they exist? Bertrand Russell expressed one aspect of the problem this way: If it's false that the present King of France is bald, then why doesn't this fact imply that it's true the present King of France is not bald? When the existence of the subjects of our statements are in question, the normal use of logic becomes unreliable. Kant argues that the use of words (or "predicates") alone does not necessarily imply the existence of their referents. We can only assume the existence of entities named by our words; we cannot prove "existence" by means of the use of language alone.  http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/c3458.html .

 

Existence is not a property (predicate) which someone or something has, but only a concept.  And abstract at that.  You are welcome to try to build a structure of logic on that foundation, but it is a foundation of sand.

 

I believe God the Father exists, not because of some claimed ontological proof (I know of none), but because that is my personal, non-transferrable testimony.  One may also have scientifically logical reasons for believing in gods or godlike beings in the universe.  That is something which buttresses my personal testimony, but does not take its place.  Moreover, one cannot know of the existence of God via pure reason (that was Kant's critique).  Simply inferring the existence of God is not enough to close the logic gap.  We need to be honest enough to simply admit that.

[mfbukowski]

Hi Robert,

I'm fascinated by Alma's list of 'proofs' given to Korihor to establish the fact that God exists, because based on what I'm reading on this thread it would seem Alma's list of proofs is very weak and philosophically ineffectual. Yet Alma is a great prophet/theologian and seems to think his list of proofs is all that's needed for a sincere seeker to be convinced that there is a God. If I had come on this thread and offered the exact same list of evidences to prove God exists, without giving Alma attribution, it's likely I'd get laughed off the stage, as it were. So does Alma know something modern philosophers and scholars don't know or is his list of evidences actually weak in spite of the fact that he is otherwise a great prophet.

According to Alma the combined testimonies of local Church leaders, living prophets, scripture and the thoughtful observation of the wonders of nature and the universe are all that's needed to establish that fact that there is indeed a God. So in light of what's been said on this thread, I'm wondering why a prophet of God, whom I'm sure is a greater theologian than either you or I, would confidently make such apparently weak arguments (and would you say they are circular?) to prove to an atheist that God exists. I'm wondering if Alma is truly onto something but because of ignorance we're simply missing the power of his point. What do you think?

You are missing the point. Alma teaches us the ONLY way to know God.

But it is not a philosophical proof.

No philosophical proof of God's existence is possible.

This is not complicated. It is as simple as that.

Yes he knows something that only philosophers who understand Alma understand.

Religious experience is not a philosophical proof, but it is the only way to know God

Edited November 12, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don’t need to prove God is real to believe God is real. If someone wants me to believe God isn’t real, They need to prove that to me. So far, no one had offered any practical or logical proof that God isn’t real. And to those who say the “ Big Bang ” is proof God isn’t real, that doesn’t hold any proof. The big bang is a theory only. Yes, it’s still a theory and not actual fact based on NASA most updated information on it. A theory isn’t proof. It’s just a thought based on the available knowledge. And even if the big bang was fact and not just a theory, it proofs nothing because what caused the big bang? If the big band really did happen, if was because God made it happen. So I believe God is real and have not had any evidence to proof to me otherwise.

That's it. That's the whole point.

[teddyaware]

You are missing the point. Alma teaches us the ONLY way to know God.

But it is not a philosophical proof.

No philosophical proof of God's existence is possible.

This is not complicated. It is as simple as that.

Yes he knows something that only philosophers who understand Alma understand.

Religious experience is not a philosophical proof, but it is the only way to know God

  

I'm not missing the point. I'm asking questions in a rhetorical manner in order to find out what Robert thinks. If you'll remember, when commenting on a previous post of mine on this very same thread you said I did "get the point."

 

In light of this thread's discussion, I'm wondering if you would do me a favor and interpret the following passages from the D&C according to your best understanding?

 

47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. (D&C 88)

Edited November 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not missing the point. I'm asking questions in a rhetorical manner in order to find out what Robert thinks. If you'll remember, when commenting on a previous post of mine on this very same thread you said I did "get the point."

 

In light of this thread's discussion, I'm wondering if you would do me a favor and interpret the following passages from the D&C according to your best understanding:

 

47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. (D&C 88)

 

Teleological argument.

[teddyaware]

Teleological argument.

 Would you also do me a favor and interpret these words of the Lord (D7C 88 47-50) according to the best of your ability? From His perspective, what do you think the Lord is trying to tell us in these verses? I would appreciate it if you would interpret each verse and not just give a brief comment.

Edited November 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

Immanuel Kant dealt with this question a long time ago:

In "Section IV. Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God," drawn from his Critique, Kant addresses the logical problem of existential import. How do we talk or think about things without supposing, in some sense at least, that they exist? Bertrand Russell expressed one aspect of the problem this way: If it's false that the present King of France is bald, then why doesn't this fact imply that it's true the present King of France is not bald? When the existence of the subjects of our statements are in question, the normal use of logic becomes unreliable. Kant argues that the use of words (or "predicates") alone does not necessarily imply the existence of their referents. We can only assume the existence of entities named by our words; we cannot prove "existence" by means of the use of language alone. http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook2.1/c3458.html .

Existence is not a property (predicate) which someone or something has, but only a concept. And abstract at that. You are welcome to try to build a structure of logic on that foundation, but it is a foundation of sand.

I believe God the Father exists, not because of some claimed ontological proof (I know of none), but because that is my personal, non-transferrable testimony. One may also have scientifically logical reasons for believing in gods or godlike beings in the universe. That is something which buttresses my personal testimony, but does not take its place. Moreover, one cannot know of the existence of God via pure reason (that was Kant's critique). Simply inferring the existence of God is not enough to close the logic gap. We need to be honest enough to simply admit that.

The question is not if you or any other person believes God exists. The question is, simply, does God exist? And as I've been saying, once any person understands what they are asking, with the word/name/title "God" correctly defined, it becomes crystal clear that no honest person would deny it.

So I'll try this again with an even simpler definition of God, since "supreme being" doesn't seem to register for you. How about, does the kind of being we are exist? Surely you, as an honest person, can see that is true. So, says you, yes the kind of being we are does exist. And yes it is true that is what God truly is.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

 Would you also do me a favor and interpret these words of the Lord (D7C 88 47-50) according to the best of your ability? From His perspective, what do you think the Lord is trying to tell us in these verses? I would appreciate it if you would interpret each verse and not just give a brief comment.

 

Irrelevant. I believe in the LDS concept of God. What I can't do is use God as the explanation of what God does. That is Prooftexting.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not missing the point. I'm asking questions in a rhetorical manner in order to find out what Robert thinks. If you'll remember, when commenting on a previous post of mine on this very same thread you said I did "get the point."

 

In light of this thread's discussion, I'm wondering if you would do me a favor and interpret the following passages from the D&C according to your best understanding?

 

47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. (D&C 88)

My best understanding?  I think it is pretty clear.  You look into the sky at night and see God's majesty.  You know you have seen God by seeing his works.

 

What's your point?  Yes, that is the only way we can know God- essentially through personal revelation.   No arguments, no science, no thought really is necessary.  It's the pure experience of seeing the majesty of the world.

 

Those who don't see it have their perception clouded by their own confused minds, after reading discussions like this one.  Words don't- and can't - do it.  All words do is cause confusion, but they are essential to communication most of the time.

 

As I recall it was Francis of Assisi who said something like:  "Preach the gospel continually- if necessary use words".   Words are a necessary evil, and it is important we understand what they can and cannot do.

[teddyaware]

My best understanding?  I think it is pretty clear.  You look into the sky at night and see God's majesty.  You know you have seen God by seeing his works.

 

What's your point?  Yes, that is the only way we can know God- essentially through personal revelation.   No arguments, no science, no thought really is necessary.  It's the pure experience of seeing the majesty of the world.

 

Those who don't see it have their perception clouded by their own confused minds, after reading discussions like this one.  Words don't- and can't - do it.  All words do is cause confusion, but they are essential to communication most of the time.

 

As I recall it was Francis of Assisi who said something like:  "Preach the gospel continually- if necessary use words".   Words are a necessary evil, and it is important we understand what they can and cannot do.

 

My point is that I was hoping you would interpret D&C 88:47-50  phrase by phrase so we could get a glimpse into your understanding of what it is the Lord is telling us in these verses. These passages, which feature the Lord speaking to us in the first person, have things to say pertaining to the subject of this thread that directly and powerfully impact the discussion. I could interpret the verses, but I already know what I think. I'm more interested to know what you think about the meaning of these verses beyond a simplistic statement to wit that God is somehow seen in His handiwork. It's obvious to me that the Lord is saying something deeply serious and profound in these verses and I'm wondering if you can tell us with some specificity what the Lord is trying to tell us. Simply put, you are a deep thinker and I'm genuinely curious to know what you get out of each word and phrase of the verses in question. I'm also looking for other scriptural perspectives beyond my own

Edited November 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

My point is that I was hoping you would interpret D&C 88:47-50  phrase by phrase so we could get a glimpse into your understanding of what it is the Lord is telling us in these verses. These passages, which feature the Lord speaking to us in the first person, have things to say pertaining to the subject of this thread that directly and powerfully impact the discussion. I could interpret the verses, but I already know what I think. I'm more interested to know what you think about the meaning of these verses beyond a simplistic statement to wit that God is somehow seen in His handiwork. It's obvious to me that the Lord is saying something deeply serious and profound in these verses and I'm wondering if you can tell us with some specificity what the Lord is trying to tell us. Simply put, you are a deep thinker and I'm genuinely curious to know what you get out of each word and phrase of the verses in question. I'm also looking for other scriptural perspectives beyond mu own

Holy cow I am flattered, but now you're in for it. 

 

Will do it later in the day when I have some time.

[Robert F. Smith]

The question is not if you or any other person believes God exists. The question is, simply, does God exist? And as I've been saying, once any person understands what they are asking, with the word/name/title "God" correctly defined, it becomes crystal clear that no honest person would deny it.

So I'll try this again with an even simpler definition of God, since "supreme being" doesn't seem to register for you. How about, does the kind of being we are exist? Surely you, as an honest person, can see that is true. So, says you, yes the kind of being we are does exist. And yes it is true that is what God truly is.

You have  several times suggested that we need a definition of God, but you do not provide one.  However, in place of that you seem to be providing a set of premises and a conclusion -- similar to what Thomas Aquinas liked to provide, except that his syllogisms were constructed more carefully:  Anyhow, your particular enthymeme seems to be as follows (correct me if I misunderstand):

 

Does the kind of being we are exist?

Yes, the kind of being we are does exist.

Thus, it is true that is what God truly is.

 

This is, of course, very bad logic, having nothing more going for it than a bit of word magic.  You are better off, Ahab, simply inferring the existence of God from general observations (as in D&C 88).  By that I mean that, since most people live by the principle that “perception is everything,” you may as well go whole hog, even if such "proofs are nonsense."  Just a suggestion:  You might want to take a critical thinking or logic class at a local college or university.

[Guest]

The New God Argument 

 

Fine Tuning argument 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiPMqWi-Myc

The best evidence that there is a God...grandchildren.

[mfbukowski]

My point is that I was hoping you would interpret D&C 88:47-50  phrase by phrase so we could get a glimpse into your understanding of what it is the Lord is telling us in these verses. These passages, which feature the Lord speaking to us in the first person, have things to say pertaining to the subject of this thread that directly and powerfully impact the discussion. I could interpret the verses, but I already know what I think. I'm more interested to know what you think about the meaning of these verses beyond a simplistic statement to wit that God is somehow seen in His handiwork. It's obvious to me that the Lord is saying something deeply serious and profound in these verses and I'm wondering if you can tell us with some specificity what the Lord is trying to tell us. Simply put, you are a deep thinker and I'm genuinely curious to know what you get out of each word and phrase of the verses in question. I'm also looking for other scriptural perspectives beyond my own

You asked for it, silly you. 

 

First let me give a disclaimer or a qualification or a definition here- what I am about to say I see as being "poetry" even though it is not particularly poetic- it is an attempt at a symbolic interpretation of these beautiful scriptures.  It is not philosophy nor is it intended to be.  Do I believe it with all my heart?  Absolutely.

 

I will start a little be earlier than your quote, because the scriptural context demands it, imo.

 

 45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

Among the most beautiful poetry in the scriptures.  Notice that the sun is regarded as male, and the earth and moon are female.  They fly through the middle of space, filled with the light of Christ, reflecting God's glory as it extends into space and time.  Space and time are synonymous.  God's eternality is reflected in the light of Christ filling space and time simultaneously- this is infinity, and the infinite atonement understood in spatial terms.

 46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?

This is saying "heads up folks, this is a parable coming, a metaphor- "

 47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

I think throughout here, Jehovah is the speaker.  In the parable, Jehovah is comparing the infinity of space and time to the infinity of his Father's works- including those of his son Jehovah, as part of the Father's glory.  The son glorifies the Father- the glory of the Son is the glory of the Father.  To see the majesty of the infinite universe is to see the majesty of the infinite atonement.  The existence of the universe manifests the existence of God- and yes, it is like the video cited in the OP, poetically speaking. 

48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

This starts above- "any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power..... he hath seen him, nevertheless ... etc"

Again, Jehovah is speaking, but now he turns to speaking about himself- "he who came unto his own was not comprehended".  The Jews who saw the mortal Jesus did not comprehend his message, even if they did understand the majesty of God through God's creations.

 49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

Christ is the light that shineth in darkness metaphorically and literally.  He is speaking of the darkness of the world- the incomprehension of religious matters; yet the day is coming when we rise again and shall comprehend all as it is- God as He is.

     And again this is the Christ- the Father of our redemption, the Second Adam by whom we are born again and "quickened".  We must be quickened through Christ to fully comprehend the Father.

     But I see another dimension to all of this, which comes out more in the next verse.  Remember we are talking here also about the universe in parable.  We are part of the universe- the majesty of God.  We are also IN the universe/multiverse and in God - as we are part of the Body of Christ in the church.  As the sun and moon are male and female, Christ is the Bridegroom and the church is the Bride.  As we take the sacrament, we are sitting in the "body" of the ward and in the body of Christ.  As we partake of the bread, we are the ground grain, raised by the yeast of the gospel message, and yet we partake of the bread so the bread is in us.  The Body of Christ is in us- and outside of us, and we are in Him and outside Him.  It is the great principle of opposition- yin and yang.

 

 50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound.

And so indeed we know God by knowing his multiverse.  We are part of Him and he is part of us.  We are gods in embryo.  He is the Ideal within us, our mind is his mind and his mind is our mind.  The stuff of stars flows in our veins and our hearts comprehend what cannot be spoken, the light that fills the immensity of space and yet dwells within us.

 

There's probably a chapter or two there in each verse, but I think that is good enough for a start. 

[teddyaware]

You asked for it, silly you. 

 

First let me give a disclaimer or a qualification or a definition here- what I am about to say I see as being "poetry" even though it is not particularly poetic- it is an attempt at a symbolic interpretation of these beautiful scriptures.  It is not philosophy nor is it intended to be.  Do I believe it with all my heart?  Absolutely.

 

I will start a little be earlier than your quote, because the scriptural context demands it, imo.

 

Among the most beautiful poetry in the scriptures.  Notice that the sun is regarded as male, and the earth and moon are female.  They fly through the middle of space, filled with the light of Christ, reflecting God's glory as it extends into space and time.  Space and time are synonymous.  God's eternality is reflected in the light of Christ filling space and time simultaneously- this is infinity, and the infinite atonement understood in spatial terms.

This is saying "heads up folks, this is a parable coming, a metaphor- "

I think throughout here, Jehovah is the speaker.  In the parable, Jehovah is comparing the infinity of space and time to the infinity of his Father's works- including those of his son Jehovah, as part of the Father's glory.  The son glorifies the Father- the glory of the Son is the glory of the Father.  To see the majesty of the infinite universe is to see the majesty of the infinite atonement.  The existence of the universe manifests the existence of God- and yes, it is like the video cited in the OP, poetically speaking. 

This starts above- "any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power..... he hath seen him, nevertheless ... etc"

Again, Jehovah is speaking, but now he turns to speaking about himself- "he who came unto his own was not comprehended".  The Jews who saw the mortal Jesus did not comprehend his message, even if they did understand the majesty of God through God's creations.

Christ is the light that shineth in darkness metaphorically and literally.  He is speaking of the darkness of the world- the incomprehension of religious matters; yet the day is coming when we rise again and shall comprehend all as it is- God as He is.

     And again this is the Christ- the Father of our redemption, the Second Adam by whom we are born again and "quickened".  We must be quickened through Christ to fully comprehend the Father.

     But I see another dimension to all of this, which comes out more in the next verse.  Remember we are talking here also about the universe in parable.  We are part of the universe- the majesty of God.  We are also IN the universe/multiverse and in God - as we are part of the Body of Christ in the church.  As the sun and moon are male and female, Christ is the Bridegroom and the church is the Bride.  As we take the sacrament, we are sitting in the "body" of the ward and in the body of Christ.  As we partake of the bread, we are the ground grain, raised by the yeast of the gospel message, and yet we partake of the bread so the bread is in us.  The Body of Christ is in us- and outside of us, and we are in Him and outside Him.  It is the great principle of opposition- yin and yang.

 

And so indeed we know God by knowing his multiverse.  We are part of Him and he is part of us.  We are gods in embryo.  He is the Ideal within us, our mind is his mind and his mind is our mind.  The stuff of stars flows in our veins and our hearts comprehend what cannot be spoken, the light that fills the immensity of space and yet dwells within us.

 

There's probably a chapter or two there in each verse, but I think that is good enough for a start. 

  

Splendid effort, Mark. Now with this offering you've helped to highlight a pet peeve of mine concerning this discussion board: All too often what we get on this board appears to be the opinions of men not even mingled with scripture! I According to my best recollection, I don't know if I can recall many instances when you, as well as many other regular board participants, use the scriptures to underscore or elucidate the points you and they are trying to make. Yet t it's obvious you have a profound understanding of the scriptures and an ability to express that understanding understandably and with genuine clarity of expression. Considering that this is a Mormon discussion board, why in the world does there seem so little effort is made to bring the words of the prophets into our discussions?

 

Now that you've done such a wonderful job with your exegesis, I want to see if we're are in agreement on a key principle. I believe the Lord makes a critically important point when He says:

 

50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound.

 

I believe what the Lord is finally telling us in the above verse is that because of the fall men's perceptions have become distorted and limited, but the day is going to come when even a hardcore atheist will realize and acknowledge that even while he was denying Him, all along God was standing right there in front of him in plain sight. With his new eyes our atheist will wonder in amazement as to how it was possible that he could have missed what so powerfully and palpably present and obvious -- the reality of God's presence. With 20/20 hindsight, our former unbeliever will understand he was not only seeing God, even as he denied Him, but that this same God was actually present within him as well, and that he wouldn't have been able to do even the simplest of things unless God was living inside of him.

 

So here is the question: Considering that "all things are before Him, and all things are round about Him; and He is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by Him, and through Him, and of Him" (see D&C 88:41), is our unbelieving atheist under any condemnation for not seeing the obvious while he is yet in mortality?

 

P.S. I ask the above question in light of the fact that I was once a hardcore atheist who is now able to look outside of his office window and plainly see God moving in all His power, majesty and glory

Edited November 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

You have several times suggested that we need a definition of God, but you do not provide one.

I have provided two, actually, and I can provide more if needed. All true and basic definitions that describe what the word/name/title "God" refers to. And if you'd like a refresher, the two I provided are "the supreme kind of being among all other kinds of beings that exist" and "the kind of being we are".

However, in place of that you seem to be providing a set of premises and a conclusion -- similar to what Thomas Aquinas liked to provide, except that his syllogisms were constructed more carefully:

It might help you to understand that I'm providing definitions based on first hand knowledge of God, rather than trying to approach the issue as if I were ignorant or relying on hearsay, and I'm simply answering the question of "does God exist?" while defining what the word/name/title God refers to while elaborating on that question to make clear what is being asked. I mean, if someone were to ask "does God exist?" without having a true understanding of what God is they wouldn't even know what they were asking.

Anyhow, your particular enthymeme seems to be as follows (correct me if I misunderstand):

Does the kind of being we are exist?

Yes, the kind of being we are does exist.

Thus, it is true that is what God truly is.

Not quite. Try this instead:

Does God exist?

Rephrase of the question while providing a true and basic definition of God. (I did that twice)

The answer is obviously yes.

This is, of course, very bad logic, having nothing more going for it than a bit of word magic.

Not my problem, since that wasn't my point.

You are better off, Ahab, simply inferring the existence of God from general observations (as in D&C 88). By that I mean that, since most people live by the principle that “perception is everything,” you may as well go whole hog, even if such "proofs are nonsense."

Without a basic understanding of what God is, though, a person could see God and not realize what they were seeing.

Just a suggestion: You might want to take a critical thinking or logic class at a local college or university.

Heh heh. I have. Have you? Edited November 13, 2014 by Ahab

[Robert F. Smith]

I have provided two, actually, and I can provide more if needed. All true and basic definitions that describe what the word/name/title "God" refers to. And if you'd like a refresher, the two I provided are "the supreme kind of being among all other kinds of beings that exist" and "the kind of being we are".

It might help you to understand that I'm providing definitions based on first hand knowledge of God, rather than trying to approach the issue as if I were ignorant or relying on hearsay, and I'm simply answering the question of "does God exist?" while defining what the word/name/title God refers to while elaborating on that question to make clear what is being asked. I mean, if someone were to ask "does God exist?" without having a true understanding of what God is they wouldn't even know what they were asking.

I have no problem with someone bearing his testimony of his "first hand knowledge of God," but that is not the same thing as logic, and it is not directly transferable, i.e, everyone must find a testimony for himself.  Bearing your testimony isn't the same thing as providing a definition, and I still do not find that you have actually provided a definition for us.  On the other hand, I don't think that a person is required to define God in order to believe in Him.  Meaningless "definitions" are no advantage to either you or God.  You don't need really them.  However, if they make you feel good, I guess you will continue to use them.  Just be aware that your definitions are incoherent.

 

Not quite. Try this instead:

Does God exist?

Rephrase of the question while providing a true and basic definition of God. (I did that twice)

The answer is obviously yes.

The words of your syllogism were taken from your own words.  I quoted you, or didn't you notice?

In which you gave the wrong premises.

 

..........................................

Heh heh. I have. Have you?

Yes, and I found it very helpful.  Too bad you didn't.

[Ahab]

I have no problem with someone bearing his testimony of his "first hand knowledge of God," but that is not the same thing as logic, and it is not directly transferable, i.e, everyone must find a testimony for himself. Bearing your testimony isn't the same thing as providing a definition, and I still do not find that you have actually provided a definition for us. On the other hand, I don't think that a person is required to define God in order to believe in Him. Meaningless "definitions" are no advantage to either you or God. You don't need really them. However, if they make you feel good, I guess you will continue to use them. Just be aware that your definitions are incoherent.

The words of your syllogism were taken from your own words. I quoted you, or didn't you notice?

In which you gave the wrong premises.

Yes, and I found it very helpful. Too bad you didn't.

You're still missing my point, or seem to be, so this time I'll make it a question and see how you would get at it.

When someone asks if God exists, don't you think it's best when they have a correct idea of God in their mind rather than a false idea about what God is? I mean, what does the word/name/title really mean? God. Not very descriptive, is it? How are they supposed to know if God exists if they don't correctly understand what the word means?

Anyway, I'm giving up trying to make my point to you now, and you can fault whoever you want to.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Ahab

[Silhouette]

You asked for it, silly you.

First let me give a disclaimer or a qualification or a definition here- what I am about to say I see as being "poetry" even though it is not particularly poetic- it is an attempt at a symbolic interpretation of these beautiful scriptures. It is not philosophy nor is it intended to be. Do I believe it with all my heart? Absolutely.

I will start a little be earlier than your quote, because the scriptural context demands it, imo.

Among the most beautiful poetry in the scriptures. Notice that the sun is regarded as male, and the earth and moon are female. They fly through the middle of space, filled with the light of Christ, reflecting God's glory as it extends into space and time. Space and time are synonymous. God's eternality is reflected in the light of Christ filling space and time simultaneously- this is infinity, and the infinite atonement understood in spatial terms.

This is saying "heads up folks, this is a parable coming, a metaphor- "

I think throughout here, Jehovah is the speaker. In the parable, Jehovah is comparing the infinity of space and time to the infinity of his Father's works- including those of his son Jehovah, as part of the Father's glory. The son glorifies the Father- the glory of the Son is the glory of the Father. To see the majesty of the infinite universe is to see the majesty of the infinite atonement. The existence of the universe manifests the existence of God- and yes, it is like the video cited in the OP, poetically speaking.

This starts above- "any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power..... he hath seen him, nevertheless ... etc"

Again, Jehovah is speaking, but now he turns to speaking about himself- "he who came unto his own was not comprehended". The Jews who saw the mortal Jesus did not comprehend his message, even if they did understand the majesty of God through God's creations.

Christ is the light that shineth in darkness metaphorically and literally. He is speaking of the darkness of the world- the incomprehension of religious matters; yet the day is coming when we rise again and shall comprehend all as it is- God as He is.

And again this is the Christ- the Father of our redemption, the Second Adam by whom we are born again and "quickened". We must be quickened through Christ to fully comprehend the Father.

But I see another dimension to all of this, which comes out more in the next verse. Remember we are talking here also about the universe in parable. We are part of the universe- the majesty of God. We are also IN the universe/multiverse and in God - as we are part of the Body of Christ in the church. As the sun and moon are male and female, Christ is the Bridegroom and the church is the Bride. As we take the sacrament, we are sitting in the "body" of the ward and in the body of Christ. As we partake of the bread, we are the ground grain, raised by the yeast of the gospel message, and yet we partake of the bread so the bread is in us. The Body of Christ is in us- and outside of us, and we are in Him and outside Him. It is the great principle of opposition- yin and yang.

And so indeed we know God by knowing his multiverse. We are part of Him and he is part of us. We are gods in embryo. He is the Ideal within us, our mind is his mind and his mind is our mind. The stuff of stars flows in our veins and our hearts comprehend what cannot be spoken, the light that fills the immensity of space and yet dwells within us.

There's probably a chapter or two there in each verse, but I think that is good enough for a start.

mfbukowski,

This is stunningly beautiful. I was wondering if there is some way you could email me this whole thing, the Scriptures you site, as well as your interpretations of them. I can't copy the whole thing for myself...again, no computer. I can't get a screenshot of it either because my phone has too small a screen to be able to do that.

If you would be kind enough to copy and email your entire post to me, I would be so grateful. If you don't mind doing this, please private me for my email. Thanks in advance.

Best,

Melanie