I begin by postulating that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, seeing that man's reach exceeds his grasp.

Let me explain for the benefit of those who don't regard God in their personal worldview.

One asks, Man's reach for what exactly? And there's another one. Man's reach for any and everything. Take any human endeavour & you will observe that there is no finality.

For instance, there are concepts like infinity, eternity, unbounded multi-dimensionality, the concept of time, the vast and untraversed universe, etc. There is more. There's always more!

What are the extents of wisdom? Man never fully appropriates the potentials of existentiality, and true wisdom in wasteless and unrestricted entirety involves an all-encompassing insight into all that was and is now extinct, all that is now, all that can be but isn't yet, and all that will never be.

We choose to attribute that finality of existentiality as one thing or agent or the other, but for me I name that Holy Grail of wisdom the mind of God.

Whether one believes in God or not is moot, but the fear (insightful &purposeful acknowledgment) of THAT finality of existentiality, is the beginning of a journey towards the wisdom desired to be acquired.

All humans reach for more of one thing or the other, regardless of race, gender, age, worldview/religion, career description or social status. The source may be argued away by someone who has no God in their worldview, but the finality is definitely unknown. THAT finality, I refer to as the mind of God about that matter.

Every journey into THAT wisdom begins with THAT single step of acknowledgment. e.g. Can one grasp mathematics without acknowledging infinity and its numerical influence? Can one entirely express the diverse human will? Is there an ultimate end to the perfection of art, such that it could never be better? etc. Man's reach ALWAYS exceeds his grasp. The finality is the mind of God, which belongs to God.

C.S. Lewis (author, Chronicles of Narnia), a guy I have a lot of respect for, started along the path of atheism but he became a Christian Apologist. He had a thing for "faith according to reason" and it was thanks to J.R.R. Tolkien (author of Lord of the Rings), who eventually helped him see reason in Christianity (as much as Lewis helped Tolkien develop his fantasy-fiction in light of the Christian Gospel)!

So, as much as many atheists would claim that there is no "reasoning" in faith, more atheists are converting to Christianity, and leaving them behind! 

P.S> Whoever hasn't read Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings should please grab a hold of them (NOT the movies, which have been quite watered down), the books are heavily typed in awesome allegories of truth.

Mavenb0x:

C.S. Lewis (author, Chronicles of Narnia), a guy I have a lot of respect for, started along the path of atheism but he became a Christian Apologist. He had a thing for "faith according to reason" and it was thanks to J.R.R. Tolkien (author of Lord of the Rings), who eventually helped him see reason in Christianity (as much as Lewis helped Tolkien develop his fantasy-fiction in light of the Christian Gospel)!

So, as much as many atheists would claim that there is no "reasoning" in faith, more atheists are converting to Christianity, and leaving them behind! 

P.S> Whoever hasn't read Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings should please grab a hold of them (NOT the movies, which have been quite watered down), the books are heavily typed in awesome allegories of truth.

What are the figures for christians converting to atheism? Or xtians moving over to islam? Or atheists becoming muslims? . . . . I guess that shows theres reasoning and truth in atheism and islam too, right?

First let me say this is the first post from you i've read in a long time.

I can help but be happy at the way you clearly put across your point without the usual long thiesis. . . .

Mavenb0x:

I begin by postulating that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, seeing that man's reach exceeds his grasp.

Let me explain for the benefit of those who don't regard God in their personal worldview.

One asks, Man's reach for what exactly? And there's another one. Man's reach for any and everything. Take any human endeavour & you will observe that there is no finality.

For instance, there are concepts like infinity, eternity, unbounded multi-dimensionality, the concept of time, the vast and untraversed universe, etc. There is more. There's always more!

What are the extents of wisdom? Man never fully appropriates the potentials of existentiality, and true wisdom in wasteless and unrestricted entirety involves an all-encompassing insight into all that was and is now extinct, all that is now, all that can be but isn't yet, and all that will never be.

We choose to attribute that finality of existentiality as one thing or agent or the other, but for me I name that Holy Grail of wisdom the mind of God.

Whether one believes in God or not is moot, but the fear (insightful &purposeful  acknowledgment) of THAT finality of existentiality, is the beginning of a journey towards the wisdom desired to be acquired.

All humans reach for more of one thing or the other, regardless of race, gender, age, worldview/religion, career description or social status. The source may be argued away by someone who has no God in their worldview, but the finality is definitely unknown. THAT finality, I refer to as the mind of God about that matter.

Every journey into THAT wisdom begins with THAT single step of acknowledgment. e.g. Can one grasp mathematics without acknowledging infinity and its numerical influence? Can one entirely express the diverse human will? Is there an ultimate end to the perfection of art, such that it could never be better? etc. Man's reach ALWAYS exceeds his grasp. The finality is the mind of God, which belongs to God.

Now to the above, I didn't see ANYWHERE you presented a RATIONAL case for God having three heads, a son, answers prayers and needs 10% of our cash all the time.

What you've merely presented is a Rational case for deism. Even a muslim or satanist can put forward this write up as a defense for his faith.

That deism is rational doesn't per force mean christianity is rational. They are two different things.

So please, provide your rational basis for CHRISTIANITY.

Absolutely, Tudor. This is an article with a Deistic Worldview: arguing for the existence of God, and not necessarily a Christian Worldview. Maybe I will consider extending it further, although that wasn't my aim initially. Cheers.

I'm glad you agree on the rationality of deism, then. And thanks for the compliment

The nature of God is a circle of which the center is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere.

-- Empedocles

Quoted below are the Five Philosophical proofs of the existence of God (Quinque viae) advanced by the Roman Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas.

It would appear to me that Maven is taking the fourth proof - the argument from degree.

I think its a good argument: as there is nothing that exists which cannot be shown to tend towards a greater or smaller, and the pinnacle of all must be. . .

The Five Ways
These proofs take the form of philosophical arguments:

[edit] 1. The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.


[edit] 2. The Argument of the First Cause
The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore another form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.


[edit] 3. The Argument from Contingency
The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.


[edit] 4. The Argument from Degree
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :

Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is whom we call God.

[edit] 5. The Teleological Argument
The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God:

All natural bodies in the world act toward ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting toward an end is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies toward their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

@Deep Sight: wow. That was cool! LOL. I didn't even know about any of these "philosophical proofs", I was just musing!

Mavenb0x:

Absolutely, Tudor. This is an article with a Deistic Worldview: arguing for the existence of God, and not necessarily a Christian Worldview. Maybe I will consider extending it further, although that wasn't my aim initially. Cheers.

I'm glad you agree on the rationality of deism, then. And thanks for the compliment

Em don't try and force your ideas on me please.

This line of reasoning you presented has been thrashed on NL several times and was not ready to engage on it again.

I only expected you to present a rational case for the CHRISTIAN God coz last time I checked you were no deist and even in your subsequent post alluded to the "rationality of christianity".

We're waiting. . . . .

Mavenb0x:

Absolutely, Tudor. This is an article with a Deistic Worldview: arguing for the existence of God, and not necessarily a Christian Worldview. Maybe I will consider extending it further, although that wasn't my aim initially. Cheers.

I'm glad you agree on the rationality of deism, then. And thanks for the compliment

Em don't try and force your ideas on me please.

This line of reasoning you presented has been thrashed on NL several times and was not ready to engage on it again.

I only expected you to present a rational case for the CHRISTIAN God coz last time I checked you were no deist and even in your subsequent post alluded to the "rationality of christianity".

We're waiting. . . . .

Mavenb0x:

Absolutely, Tudor. This is an article with a [size=13pt]Deistic[/size] Worldview: arguing for the existence of God, and not necessarily a Christian Worldview. Maybe I will consider extending it further, although that wasn't my aim initially. Cheers.

I'm glad you agree on the rationality of deism, then. And thanks for the compliment

Tudor, I belief in Deism, but I am not a Deist. I am a Theist. I am a born-from-above, a zoe (life of God) carrier, a.k.a Christian.

I say this because of the following definitions,

Deism: The form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation

Deist: 1. Freethinker
2. A person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it
3. Of or relating to deism

Christian: 1. Following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ
2. A religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination

My post about a rational case for Christianity will be on another thread, and you have to be very patient because
(a) I am a very busy person and time is precious
(b) I need to organize my thoughts so that you can appreciate the coherence, especially you, Tudor
(c) I type quite slowly, and I have refused to practice speed-typing
(d) I have resurrected an addiction for chess. Anyone who is interested can join me on chess.com through my signature

Maven, although i regard some of your analogies as bizzare, or better put: incomplete or presumptuous, i think you have a very good brain between your ears. For this reason i find it strange that you type slowly. Not that there's any co-relation.

Regarding setting out your thoughts (especially on this topic) - let me say this: I find that humans are like leopards. Once adult, we scarcely change our perspectives: in this not even the most advanced logic is persuasive.

I have realized that rather than force one's perspective on targets that will never appreciate them (regardless of how well-thought out or refined such perspectives may be) it is more useful to sniff out the very rare and very few open minds who can actually change their "spots" if well convinced - and then commune with such.

In this let me make a subtle distinction: the rare cat who will change his spots based on quality insights is not to be confused with the gullible stray cat who will be convinced by anything at all.

That statement alludes to the divine nature being holographic, right?

imhotep:

The nature of God is a circle of which the center is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere.

-- Empedocles

We can make a case for a first cause, or a prime mover, or a non-contingent entity, and so on and so forth, but none of these pro arguements can be used to make a case for the "entities" being posited by all the 3 abrahamic faiths as God, with all the characteristics of these entities clearly listed in their respective scriptures.

Let jews come out and make a case for Yahweh/Jehovah as being the first cause.Let the muslims come out and make a case for Allah as the prime mover.And let christians also come out and make a case for their triune God as being the non-contingent entity.

I think that that is what tudor is waiting for, and so am i.

^^^ Which is a bizzare thing to wait for given that all three faiths emphatically define the very same God as being the originator of all things. What else is to be understood by the words "first cause" or "prime mover"? ? ?

Indeed in the words "I am that i am" - the whole definition of God being a necessary, self-existent and non-contingent factor is resoundingly stated.

The bit which doesn't sit well with me, as is notoriously known on this forum, is the triune idea. . .

Deep Sight you are so right on target in the post above! I realized the leopard spot stuff after a week on NL so nowadays, I post for posterity (pun intended) and defend my own beliefs but only until conflict arises and I exit the thread, leaving evidence for future cats whose spots are roaming. But for other leopards like myself i.e. You, Krayola, Viaro, m_nwankwo, Imhotep, Pastor AIO, Noetic and other strongly opinionated and expressive folks (Im not talking cut & paste via google) who I highly respect, I dont mind rubbing minds (pun intended) because I always come away with more insight than I started with, even if all leopards remain mottled.

I type slowly cos I never learnt the QWERTY speed-touch-typing way. So if I type fast I hit away at the keys rather noisily (really fast cos I know where all the keys are, without glancing). I cant do that at work cos my job description shouldnt spew so much typed text but I type fast, noisily fast at home. Sometimes I also type slowly cos im on my phone & there's only so much speed that T9 and a QWERTY keypad can render!

lol Deep Sight, you see how slow I type on my phone I was referring to post #11 when I said d post above! But 3 replies had rapidly attended.

God, like beauty, is in the "I" of the beholder . . .

@OP
Nice post, but you see I think you face the same problem everyone who tries to bring reasoning into the existence of God does. You have to put in your personal convictions here and there as shown by

We choose to attribute that finality of existentiality as one thing or agent or the other, but for me I name that Holy Grail of wisdom the mind of God.

and there at that point you blew all you had been trying to say.

Aside from the part that the previous lines before that statement were your probabilities and possibilities you are not anywhere near the certainty of what it takes to rationally prove anything, and when I say certainty I mean something you can explain to all and everyone in a language we will all understand, like the mathematics you mooted. Yes we may never fully know these the extent of infinity but giving it borders and calling it God, giving it attributes like loving caring, forgiving sins and so on is just plain well you guys know how you do it.

imhotep:

God,  like beauty,  is in the "I" of the beholder . . .

Nice!


My main beef with the OP, is that it presumes a universe of entities that are tangentially linear in their structure.  What do I mean by tangentially linear?  A tangent goes and goes and goes and never returns to it's point of origin.

http://www.rockhounds.com/oplc/cd_online/faceting_articles/bob_keller/tangentratio_files/tangent_graph1.gif

Now whether that tangential line has an end where it stops or whether it goes on into infinity is not the bone of my contention.  But rather the fact that things are always been described as tangentially linear.

ie.  Space extends into infinity.

Time extends into infinity

Numbers that we use to measure and describe our universe extend into infinity.  

The presumption is too big that the the structure, or the description, of things are tangentially linear.

This also stumps 'proofs' like Aquinas' first mover etc, cos it places God at a point in time, namely the beginning.  I don't think God can be limited or defined temporally like that.  

So if the world is not to be described in a tangentially linear way, what other way can it be described?
Let me let you muse on that a bit.  

I could also expound on my beefs with Aquinas' other proofs but that would be going off the topic of this thread.

^^^ Hi Chris. Long time. How bodi?

Please do bear in mind that the fact that God cannot be rationally explained in a language everybody would understand does not necessariliy invalidate God's existence.

Any more than the fact that scientific or natural phenomena cannot be understood by everyone will invalidate the existence of such phenomena?

This whole argument for god brouhaha. . . . .Why is it that god's existence is the only thing whose existence depends on the existence of other things? No body has ever shown that his/her god exist but people are constantly pointing to the existence of other things as evidence for the existence of their various gods? When will people point to their various gods and show that they exists and stop pointing to other things. . . .

Deep Sight:

^^^ Hi Chris. Long time. How bodi?

Please do bear in mind that the fact that God cannot be rationally explained in a language everybody would understand does not necessariliy invalidate God's existence.

All you keep on saying is that your god is everything but when examined closely your god always turns out to be NOTHING. . . .

Any more than the fact that scientific or natural phenomena cannot be understood by everyone will invalidate the existence of such phenomena?

But scientific explanation are rationally explained and understood by all no? Take the theory of gravity or cell theory both have a universal and rational explanation? The universal and rational explanation of oneness of infinity is WHAT?

mazaje:

This whole argument for god brouhaha. . . . .Why is it that god existence is the only thing whose existence depends on the existence of other things? No body has ever shown that his/her god exist but people are constantly pointing to the existence of other things as evidence for the existence of their various gods? When will people point to their various gods and show that they exists and stop pointing to other things. . . .

^^^ The same can be said for many natural phenomena. Take gravity for example. You cannot see Gravity itself. But if you throw an object into a space where there is gravity, you will see the effects of gravity. it thus follows that proving the existence of gravity depends of the existence of other things!

In fact i may even stretch the analogy and state that if there was absolutely no other thing in existence other than yourself, you will never be able to prove that you exist even to yourself.

So why are you at odds that proving the existence of God may require showing how other things function?

Capisce?

Deep Sight:

^^^ The same can be said for many natural phenomena. Take gravity for example. You cannot see Gravity itself. But if you throw an object into a space where there is gravity, you will see the effects of gravity. it thus follows that proving the existence of gravity depends of the existence of other things!

The difference is that god is not talked about as a natural phenomena. . . .Gravity is a phenomenon but god is said to have properties and also  to exists on its own independent of other things. . .When will people point to their gods and show that they exist independent of other things? If you read the bible, koran and other religious text you will see how those gods are described. . . They are NOT described the way modern day believers are describing them at all. . . .Is oneness of infinity a phenomenon or does it exist on its one? What is oneness of infinity? How does it exist? Can people know it and have an encounter with it? How can it be known? Does it exist independent of other things, if it does then how can it be objectively shown to exist on its own?

In fact i may even stretch the analogy and state that if there was absolutely no other thing in existence other than yourself, you will never be able to prove that you exist even to yourself.

I see my self, I can touch myself, hear my voice etc. . . .What is this meaningless analogy? My friend I guess you are trying to hard. . . .

So why are you at odds that proving the existence of God may require showing how other things function?

Capisce?

Does god exists? Why is it that NO god has been shown to exists on its own independent of other things? Does god exists? If he does then he should be pointed to. . . Pointing to the existence of other things is evidence for the existence of those things not some mythical god. . . .

As well as a knife to cut itself, or a tooth to bite itself, as ask God to reveal Himself . . .

@Chris: would you have been happier if I continued with the reference: the "Aphysical, Remote Finality of Existentiality and Interactive Processes (ARFEIP)" rather than the "mind of God"? Why should my opinion not be involved, seeing that worldviews are personal? As Imhotep said, its all in the "I" of the beholder.

@Pastor AIO: No sir, I do not consider existentiality as tangentially linear, but as apparently (to humans) so, by nature of their experience.

I believe existentiality is all at once, immense, but not exactly entirely predestinated. I will explain. Its like a finished complex, abstract sculpture, a unique massive masterpiece that is being observed in a timeframed fashion by the artist himself (who, with respect to the art piece, is timeless because the reckoning of time with respect to the creation is the moment the artist expressed it), a group of experts to examine & critically evaluate the art, some rival upcoming artists and their minions there to disparage the artist and to sabotage parts of the work cunningly or when no one is looking, curious amateur art enthusiasts (some of whom will see a critic studying or examining an aspect of the work, and they conclude he must be the source to be so vast in ken) and some guys just paid to be a thronging audience (who either have no clue what is going on, or are just not bothered. They are just waiting for the contract to end). The artist has a diverse array of cameras, motion detectors and other sensors tracking each participant. The artist paid everyone to attend, because the masterpiece is not what is most important but their EXPERIENCE with it. Their cumulative interactive experience with the presented work is not predestinated, and it in itself is an unlimited, intangible art piece. THAT is the finality of the great artist's work: the summa of experiences, interactivities, observations, elation, criticism, etc. The artist had skilfully set out to capture their timeless expression within the timeframe of the staged exhibition USING the art piece. If at all anything at all is tangentially linear, its not the art. Its the interactive expression that the art triggers inside a participant, and that it triggers between participants, that is tangentially linear.

I guess you understand, but let me push things further using a prehistoric scenario: consider a time when 100 was the largest number and it was a taboo to insinuate that 101 exists (I once read that numbers are probably so-called because the larger they get, the numb-er the mind gets). In fact, everyone of them would delay, make excuses and slow down as they approached 90 and only the most brave & holy ones would consciously do anything up to 99 times, then leave the last one to finality. Counting 100 would trivialize finality like the other numbers. The finality of their numbers is at 100 but it will never be the finality of their experience because during a war wasting the people, in a bid to save face, say, 99 priests from each of the 99 spiritual clans would gather to chant 99 various spells, and each one each spell 99 times, and each priest cuts themselves 99 times in between each of those spell repititions per spell variation. . . (you can keep extending this anyway you like). Their numerical finality has been surpassed by their unbounded experiential finality (99 x 99 x 99 x 99 x 99. . .). Man's reach exceeds his grasp! Existentiality is immense and finite but appears infinite to man, while man's experience is, so to speak, tangentially linear and infinite. The timeframe of observation (human lifespan) is what truncates each experience.

why are we even arguing for the existence of God? I believe it is endless genealogies . . .

Anyone that thinks God doesnt exist shld be free to believe whatever he chooses.

Deep Sight:

^^^ Hi Chris. Long time. How bodi?

Please do bear in mind that the fact that God cannot be rationally explained in a language everybody would understand does not necessariliy invalidate God's existence.

Any more than the fact that scientific or natural phenomena cannot be understood by everyone will invalidate the existence of such phenomena?

Hello yourself deepsight, my body dey fine. . .
I do bear in mind that my convictions about the existence of God could be wrong, maybe it would change someday but for now I think I will stick with what I have for now which is that God cannot be rationally explained one way or the other there will be holes everywhere. If a fact or phenomenon cannot be understood by us we have to try and do the right thing by everyone and say well Chris I think it should be like this and that but I am not really sure. How is God a phenomenon anyway?

^^^ The same can be said for many natural phenomena. Take gravity for example. You cannot see Gravity itself. But if you throw an object into a space where there is gravity, you will see the effects of gravity. it thus follows that proving the existence of gravity depends of the existence of other things!

In fact i may even stretch the analogy and state that if there was absolutely no other thing in existence other than yourself, you will never be able to prove that you exist even to yourself.

So why are you at odds that proving the existence of God may require showing how other things function?

Capisce?

I love this gravity analogy, it always comes to my mind first, you see I am not of the opinion we can absolutely prove everything. But we can provide evidence for our claims, we have evidence of gravity. In fact we can design systems that will work based on our already formed principles on how these things work, there are no thirty thousand different versions of the theory of gravity, no we all agree and make our designs along those lines.
If I say we should set up an experiment to ascertain the existence of God are you sure all our results would be the same thing? I guess not, but you see if we setup experiments on gravity I am sure a good majority of them would result in the same thing.

@mavenbox
To be honest if your wrote that Aphysical thing I would have been lost as well, yes the world is made up of personal views, but when you want to explain phenomena that should affect the whole of humanity, God, Gravity, . . . . .Football you had better bring something other than your personal convictions something we can all hold on to regardless of whatever other convictions we have.

^^^

That gravity thing sef get as ee be.

Isn't the understanding of 'gravity' itself, changing these days. Recently i heard that gravity may be mediated by something they call 'graviton's'-some form of elementary particles. The concept of 'gravitons' surely didn't exist in the days when we used to cram Nelson and Parker and then look for A-level physics concepts to also cram!. My point is that science only makes observations, but doesn't really explain the true nature of things.

We lack the capacity, as humans, to know the 'true' nature of things IMO. We can only explain things in terms of our own experiences and body of 'knowledge' available to us at any given time.

In church this sunday gone, the pastor was asking what people thought was the most profound question of all. He concluded that the answer is 'who am i?'.I think that people who hold the superficial belief that God does not exist, have not asked themselves that most profound of questions. I think anybody who is honest enough to ask themselves that question and is honest enough to begin the search for the answer will not be too quick to dismiss the fact that there is more to life than this that we see and feel around us.

So to make a rational case for the existence of God, i honestly think that one needs to have answered the simplest, yet most profound question(s) of all: who am i? what is the true nature of man? If we can answer these questions then-and only then-will we be able to apprehend God; until then we only dance around in shadows of half-truths and veiled ignorance.

I think that 'wisdom' in all this, is found when we have the humility to aknowledge that we really know nothing, and that all we are doing is really grope around in the darkness.

I think that people who hold the superficial belief that God does not exist, have not asked themselves that most profound of questions. I think anybody who is honest enough to ask themselves that question and is honest enough to begin the search for the answer will not be too quick to dismiss the fact that there is more to life than this that we see and feel around us.

Spot on a zillion times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow!! This is bizarre.

That there is more to life than what we can see and explain proves that there is a God? How the f@$k does that work?