Proofs for the existence of God

[Kulindahr]

OK, this ancient Great Mother was the abiding reality. Not only did you not have to 'prove' Her, because you and everything were born from Her, She was all around as nature and the universe. So what about gods. Well as seen, they naturally were birthed from here and returned to her, and were the ever living, ever dying ever regenerating son/lovers of the Goddess. They were also associated with vegetation, which means the seasons, and cycles, but also the sacred vegetation that we eat and are invited to share the celebration of the Sacred Mystery which is not 'somewhere else' in a heaven away from nature, but always here. The proof of the pudding is in the eating they say lol

The notion of a cosmic Mother is deficient from the start: a mother is useless without the action of a father.

 

[ludolfo]

The notion of a cosmic Mother is deficient from the start: a mother is useless without the action of a father.

is that right? So speaketh the patriarch Kulindhar hey?

Since when has any father given birth? You totally miss the central point Kulindahr.

 

[bankside]

Yes, the point being that, Naturally™….Evidently™….and Obviously™, a sexually dimorphic species that gives birth is absolutely relevant to the question of whether there is a supernatural conscious entity responsible for our existence, who can operate independently of the laws of physics, as their author, and who cares about our well-being.

Because any god could not be modelled after a hermaphroditic sea cucumber! That would just be silly!

Sigh.

Scientism: a made-up slur, irrelevant to rational discourse, insinuating that science is something other than what it says it is and is thus somehow vaguely sinister or at least arbitrary. It's a straw-man. It would be like pretending there was something called christ-ism lest the arguments against christianity miss their mark. Fortunately atheists see no need to debate christ-ism.

 

[Kulindahr]

is that right? So speaketh the patriarch Kulindhar hey?

Since when has any father given birth? You totally miss the central point Kulindahr.

"So speaketh" reason and science: mothers don't give birth by themselves; a father is required to kick things off.

 

[Kulindahr]

Scientism: a made-up slur, irrelevant to rational discourse, insinuating that science is something other than what it says it is and is thus somehow vaguely sinister or at least arbitrary. It's a straw-man. It would be like pretending there was something called christ-ism lest the arguments against christianity miss their mark. Fortunately atheists see no need to debate christ-ism.

No, scientism is like Aristotelianism: a faith in statements of science without addressing the substance, and therefore making claims that science itself neither does nor can make.

Believers in scientism abound (they're abundant in a certain thread on this board that purports to involve religion and humor).

 

[mightbe]

Not a universal rule -- it's the foundation of scientism, though.

But universal rules can be derived from proofs. Frankly, I don't see why religious people should be concerned about science. Science is inherently spiritual and true. And since the statements "God hath made it so" "God maketh no mistake" are central to Christianity, it should stand to reason that Christians be especially interested in science, which, according to their beliefs is how God did it. They should want to know everything about what God did, and since science is truth, it would seem to the perfect branch of study.

After all, it's more humble to accept what the universe has to teach than it is to stand on a pulpit and say that a book holds the truth.

 

[ludolfo]

...hmmm. Christianity. Science. (we wont mention the more hidden occult for now. What deep 'sh*t we are in if you only knew!!! I suppose for some ignorance is bliss. But I have the terrible news that even the BEES are under threat of extinction! So this is not just some intellectual exercise as to who is the more one-up intellectual. It is URGENT that we understand what is going on. Like as in when a house is burning down you don't discuss the different types of fire, you act to put it out.

Science emerges from Christianity. Galileo (father of modern science) shares worldview that there is a 'God/creator' who creates nature/matter/creation which is supposedly fallen and humans are born in sin and need the redemption of Christ to be saved.

What I am getting at here is that BOTH Church AND Galileo do bot believe in animism---of the belief that spirit is part of nature. So from that premise Church and Galileo make an agreement that The former will focus on the 'spiritual' and the latter on 'matter, and its forces of energy'.

Fast forward time--------Now science have dispensed with the 'God' and any notion of 'spirit' and more and more the mechanistic myth oppresses one and all, and we are right in it now. WE are supposed to be according to 'science' biological robots who haven't any freewill. nature is dead/insentient, and ,,,well life is meaningless unless you buy the consumer myth of success, and grab what you can while you--a 'fluke of consciousness' (come neuroscientists even question whether consciousness is real!) is here, because when yer dead yer dead.

What is the driving mythos behind BOTH Christianity and official science? The Patriarchy! The patriarchy that suppressed/suppresses the mythology of the Great Mother. it says like Kuindhar seems to above. Woman is nothing without the male and his sperm. Likewise the patriarchal philosophy says that nature is nothing without the 'male intellect/mind' which is superior to nature (nature has anciently been connected with the Feminine). So some may think mythology is of the past, but we are far deeper than just the rational---we are dreaming beings, and this stuff has deep psychic meaning for us. To not be aware of that, you are driven willy nilly anyhow by any myth that may very well be destructive, if it is antagonistic towards nature.

The 'God' is the patriarchal male ego in the sky who is a 'jealous god' and will not tolerate any 'images'. IE will not allow the communing with nature. Christians will often say this cliche 'love the creator, not his creation'.

 

[Kulindahr]

Frankly, I don't see why religious people should be concerned about science. Science is inherently spiritual and true. And since the statements "God hath made it so" "God maketh no mistake" are central to Christianity, it should stand to reason that Christians be especially interested in science, which, according to their beliefs is how God did it. They should want to know everything about what God did, and since science is truth, it would seem to the perfect branch of study.

Exactly. The Old Testament has chorus after chorus about how fantastic and wonderful Creation is, inviting mankind to investigate it and learn from it and celebrate it with God. Nature is described on both portions of the Bible as something God made to take joy from, so it's just simple sense to want to study it ad share the joy.

After all, it's more humble to accept what the universe has to teach than it is to stand on a pulpit and say that a book holds the truth.

No, both are humble, because both are really the same thing: taking a set of data and delving into it.

The problem arises when in either field someone decides it's the total source of all truth... and then proceeds to stop investigating, assuming that his or her present understanding is All There Is. Ironically, in both cases it's those most ignorant who are most close-minded and ignorant.

 

[Kulindahr]

The 'God' is the patriarchal male ego in the sky who is a 'jealous god' and will not tolerate any 'images'. IE will not allow the communing with nature. Christians will often say this cliche 'love the creator, not his creation'.

Forbidding images (BTW, that's not one of the Ten Commandments, as is commonly [mis]conceived) has nothing to do with "not allow[ing] the communing with nature". The Old Testament calls people to "clap your hands!" and celebrate -- the very same thing it describes nature as doing! The message is to stand with nature, join with the nature of which we are a part, and celebrate our common existence as, well, existing.

I have never before heard anyone say what you claim, let alone any Christian. The Bible sets out that the whole point of mankind existing is to be part of nature, to take care of it as its premier part. According to the Bible, celebrating Creation is celebrating the Creator.

That's where my impulse to conservation comes from: God put us here to live with nature and be good to it. Any other position is an insult to God, since He made every single part of it for His enjoyment, from mountain to moon, from bacterium to black hole.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The problem arises when in either field someone decides it's the total source of all truth... and then proceeds to stop investigating, assuming that his or her present understanding is All There Is. Ironically, in both cases it's those most ignorant who are most close-minded and ignorant.

Yes, I agree. And I further think we ought to be able to move with more fluidity between hard accounts of the facts, and notions of meaning and significance. Or you could say, between hard notions of meaning, and accounts of the facts.

For example, I like it neither when people adopt as a total account of the truth that the literal resurrection of christ is the best explanation of events (outside of a ritual setting), nor when people assert that the resurrection of christ ought not be considered a meaningful event (outside of a specifically factual venue).

When I read this forum, I admire most those members in whom I can identify a real negotiation of the senses of truth, and that includes both atheists and the faithful.

 

[ludolfo]

Forbidding images (BTW, that's not one of the Ten Commandments, as is commonly [mis]conceived) has nothing to do with "not allow[ing] the communing with nature". The Old Testament calls people to "clap your hands!" and celebrate -- the very same thing it describes nature as doing! The message is to stand with nature, join with the nature of which we are a part, and celebrate our common existence as, well, existing.

I have never before heard anyone say what you claim, let alone any Christian. The Bible sets out that the whole point of mankind existing is to be part of nature, to take care of it as its premier part. According to the Bible, celebrating Creation is celebrating the Creator.

That's where my impulse to conservation comes from: God put us here to live with nature and be good to it. Any other position is an insult to God, since He made every single part of it for His enjoyment, from mountain to moon, from bacterium to black hole.

Again, a typical patriarchal move. Just say it is so and it will be and puit it in history books because we said so. This in modern terms is 'perception management' or 'controlling the narrative'. The patriarchal mythologists have been up to this for hundreds of years via their toxic myths. It is the deepest form of denial. Many people have been persecuted, tortured, and killed for the 'sin' or believing something different than the fukin Christian belief. Pagan people---remember them---are not unfamiliar with reverence for Mother Earth and making IMAGES of the Goddess etc to worship...? This is class 101 mate. I think you have some learning to catch up on!

The Catholic church to this day refuses to apologize for its persecution of pagans:

Background:

Since ca 395 AD, with the Codex Theodosius, Pagans have been persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church as it became the dominant religion.

Forced conversions to Christianity, torture and death of resisters, destruction of Pagan property, sacred sites, symbols, wealth, literature, etc. - as well as Christianizations (Christian claiming of Pagan property, symbols, celebrations) -- are some of the persecutions that Pagans have suffered at the hands of the Church.

The Inquisition in particular targeted Witches and those accused of Witchcraft with such vehemence that the term "Witch Hunt" has become synonymous with both religious and political persecution.

Anti-Pagan and anti-Witchcraft propaganda produced by the Inquisition continues to negatively influence how Pagans and Witches are perceived by the public today.

Although Witches, Wiccans, and others who are part of contemporary Paganism do not worship the devil and do not engage in malevolent spiritual activities, false stereotypes about this, which are rooted in Inquisition anti-Witch propaganda persist. ...

The text of the letter to Pope John Paul II

Pagans in Action: Council for Truth
1373 Dunbarton Road
Montgomery, AL 36117

Samhain (October 31), 1999

His Holiness, Pope John Paul II
Vatican City

Your Holiness:

The signatories to this letter have become aware that your advisors in the Vatican are working on a formal Apology to the Protestant Christians, Jews and Muslims for the persecution these groups suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church during the centuries of the Inquisition. It is our understanding that you will formally present this Apology at the opening of the Holy Year 2000 Grand Jubilee, following a penitential procession from the Basilica of Santa Sabina to Rome's Circus Maximus, where you will call for forgiveness for the historic failings of the Church. This is a brave and laudable effort, heralding the beginning of a great healing between the Catholic Church and the groups that have, historically, been persecuted in its name.

We note however, that early news releases concerning this event have not indicated that those accused of being Witches, and those indigenous (i.e. "Pagan") peoples who were forcibly converted by the Church will be included in your apology. This letter is a formal request for that omission to be rectified. As leaders of the contemporary Pagan/Wiccan community, we sincerely hope that Your Holiness will lead the way to mutual respect for all religions and spiritual paths by including all those who suffered from the tragedy of the Inquisition.

Modern Pagans, including many identified as Witches and Druids, comprise a global spiritual movement that draws its inspiration and traditions from indigenous pre-Christian religions. In the name of our spiritual ancestors who suffered persecution during the Inquisition, we respectfully request inclusion of Pagans and Witches in your Apology Address.

Sincerely Yours,

[1,639 Signatories] source

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, a typical patriarchal move. Just say it is so and it will be and puit it in history books because we said so. This in modern terms is 'perception management' or 'controlling the narrative'. The patriarchal mythologists have been up to this for hundreds of years via their toxic myths. It is the deepest form of denial. Many people have been persecuted, tortured, and killed for the 'sin' or believing something different than the fukin Christian belief. Pagan people---remember them---are not unfamiliar with reverence for Mother Earth and making IMAGES of the Goddess etc to worship...? This is class 101 mate. I think you have some learning to catch up on!

The Catholic church to this day refuses to apologize for its persecution of pagans:

Fascinating. Your response has nothing to do with my post.

 

[ludolfo]

Fascinating. Your response has nothing to do with my post.

of course it does, but I am afraid you cannot see it.

 

[Kulindahr]

of course it does, but I am afraid you cannot see it.

No, it doesn't. I pointed out actual information about the situation, and you answered with an ideological spiel. You didn't address the content of my post, you didn't provide any evidence for the ridiculous claim you made, and you didn't respond at all to my final paragraph, where I shared a personal aspect.

You sounded, in fact, like a Tea Party advocate.

 

[ludolfo]

No, it doesn't. I pointed out actual information about the situation, and you answered with an ideological spiel. You didn't address the content of my post, you didn't provide any evidence for the ridiculous claim you made, and you didn't respond at all to my final paragraph, where I shared a personal aspect.

You sounded, in fact, like a Tea Party advocate.

Your 'the old testament' asks people to 'clap their hands' is freakin hillarious. That is supposed to counter what I presented is it? More people than me know that Judeo Christianity as definitely NOT Goddess friendly. It is androcentric, and the 'God' is NOT to be confused with 'his' creation. The fact you have not encountered believers in that worldview saying 'love the creator not his creation' is obviously because you do not accept what I beli9eve and so dont encounter other criticizing it, because you believe what they do....duh

OK, First Commandment: " I am the Lord thay God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exod. 20: 2-3)

The Second Commandment: "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image , or any likeness of any thing that is to heaven above, or that is the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exod. 20:4)

What is it you cannot understand...?

In its Abrahamic branch, Islam, there again no images are allowed!

You 'God' claims that human kind's ancestors Adam and Eve committed a sin in the Garden of Eden and he then had to have his Only Son tortured and crucified to pay off the debt. He gave 'dominion' OVER nature to Adam. It is not the same at all as the indigenous, and earth-centred pagan animistic understanding of nature.

Where you getting your info from?

 

[Love me 2]

Your 'the old testament' asks people to 'clap their hands' is freakin hillarious. That is supposed to counter what I presented is it? More people than me know that Judeo Christianity as definitely NOT Goddess friendly. It is androcentric, and the 'God' is NOT to be confused with 'his' creation. The fact you have not encountered believers in that worldview saying 'love the creator not his creation' is obviously because you do not accept what I beli9eve and so dont encounter other criticizing it, because you believe what they do....duh

OK, First Commandment: " I am the Lord thay God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exod. 20: 2-3)

The Second Commandment: "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image , or any likeness of any thing that is to heaven above, or that is the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exod. 20:4)

What is it you cannot understand...?

In its Abrahamic branch, Islam, there again no images are allowed!

You 'God' claims that human kind's ancestors Adam and Eve committed a sin in the Garden of Eden and he then had to have his Only Son tortured and crucified to pay off the debt. He gave 'dominion' OVER nature to Adam. It is not the same at all as the indigenous, and earth-centred pagan animistic understanding of nature.

Where you getting your info from?

You are so right....Catholicism, along with all the other Mainstream Christianity (especially those who are Liturgical), are not goddessses friendly at all. Now, about Images...What do you make of the fact that God did instruct that there be two Angel figures on the Arc of the Covenant, one at each end , etc? Oh, and Moses Staff with the Serpant on it (another one ordered by God). Christianity has images that reminds us of who is in heaven, like having pictures of Families on the Piano or Fireplace mantle. We don't worship the images.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your 'the old testament' asks people to 'clap their hands' is freakin hillarious. That is supposed to counter what I presented is it? More people than me know that Judeo Christianity as definitely NOT Goddess friendly.

Now you change the subject -- what the frak does "goddess" have anything to do with the relationship between the biblical God and nature?

And yes, if you have any powers of critical thinking, the fact that God tells people to do the same thing nature does is highly important.

It is androcentric, and the 'God' is NOT to be confused with 'his' creation. The fact you have not encountered believers in that worldview saying 'love the creator not his creation' is obviously because you do not accept what I beli9eve and so dont encounter other criticizing it, because you believe what they do....duh

No, I haven't encountered it because no one says it. The numbers of times it's used on the web is in double digits, and the appearances are not independent at all -- and not a single one of those web occurrences is from anyone saying it, only from people arguing against it.

By standard rules of scholarship, the best bet is that you invented it.

OK, First Commandment: " I am the Lord thay God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exod. 20: 2-3)

The Second Commandment: "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image , or any likeness of any thing that is to heaven above, or that is the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exod. 20:4)

The second statement above is not a commandment -- anyone with a basic ability to reason can tell that, because within mere chapters God turns around and commands them to make images,,,,,,,,, of things in heaven, and things on earth.

And the first statement is merely logical. Any number between one and infinity for an origin of all things is ridiculous.

You 'God' claims that human kind's ancestors Adam and Eve committed a sin in the Garden of Eden and he then had to have his Only Son tortured and crucified to pay off the debt. He gave 'dominion' OVER nature to Adam. It is not the same at all as the indigenous, and earth-centred pagan animistic understanding of nature.

The teaching ab out original sin is evident all around us: humans are selfish, cruel, and screw things up even when they have the best of intentions.

As for "dominion", well, a cook has dominion over his soup, but the customer expects that to mean that the cook will do the very best possible to make the very best soup possible, From the ancient rabbis I was privileged to translate from when studying Hebrew, that's what God gave Adam: the privilege of caring for all of Creation and making it as good as possible. So it's actually at least as good as any animistic view of nature, because it doesn't give mankind any permission at all to abuse nature: nature belongs to God, and man's job is to take care of it to the best of his ability.

Where you getting your info from?

It's this book called "the Bible" -- but not as abused by Latin thinkers (especially since Thomas Aquinas).

 

[Kulindahr]

Now, about Images...What do you make of the fact that God did instruct that there be two Angel figures on the Arc of the Covenant, one at each end , etc? Oh, and Moses Staff with the Serpant on it (another one ordered by God). Christianity has images that reminds us of who is in heaven, like having pictures of Families on the Piano or Fireplace mantle. We don't worship the images.

Bingo!

God orders the making of images; ergo, the statement about images is not to be numbered among the Ten Words -- it's merely a commentary on the prohibition of other gods.

BTW, even that prohibition isn't absolute as commonly understood: it says no other gods "before" or "beside". Given that the Psalms more than once refer to other gods, and Jesus even cites a passage naming all of God's people as gods ("You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High."), it does not mean there are not lesser beings which exercise power, it merely means that they are all created by God. These powers are to be honored because their authority comes from God.

 

[Nemothepanda]

What about Brahma or Amaterasu? The Jade Emperor? Zeus. There are as many people thinking that these gods exist too.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
"Deities" that are obviously just parts of the universe, e.g. your latter two above, have no claim to being considered a/the supreme being. Any actual Supreme Being has to be Creator of all.

- - - Updated - - -

^
"Deities" that are obviously just parts of the universe, e.g. your latter two above, have no claim to being considered a/the supreme being. Any actual Supreme Being has to be Creator of all.