The Philosophical Proof of God

G + O + D = GOD
Greatest Observations about Deity.
D&C 93: 1: Know that I AM.
MarkMyWords
Posts: 1113
Contact:

The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#1 » Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:04 pm

"A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion." ~ Francis Bacon, philosopher and scientist.

"Philosophy when superficially studied, excites doubt, when thoroughly explored, it dispels it." ~ Francis Bacon

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." ~ Francis Bacon

"Self-deception works, and it works every time." - Darwin Max Bagley



"Philosophical proofs must be backed by Evidence, in order to Know that they ARE True." - Darwin Max Bagley


***


The Philosophical Proof of God:

Philosophically, it is easier to prove that something exists than it is to prove that it doesn't exist.

To prove to yourself that something does not exist requires a leap-of-faith on your part at some point in the process. Absent any evidence whatsoever, you just unilaterally decide to believe that the thing does not exist. That's how proof works. At some point, you just simply decide that an idea is true, or an idea is false. Once you have made your decision or your choice, then that particular point has been proven to you, one way or the other.

There are a hundred different ways to prove that God exists; and, many of them are very convincing. But, how can you find and present any kind of evidence that proves that God does not exist? At some point you have to take a leap-of-faith and just assume that there is evidence that proves that God does not exist and that that evidence is truly convincing. Then you have to will yourself to believe that evidence so that you can prove to yourself that God does not exist.

Since God exists, philosophical proofs of God's existence are easy to manufacture; and, most of them are quite convincing.

In contrast, whenever someone tells me that God does not exist, I have to take a leap-of-faith in order to believe that that person is telling me the truth, because it is impossible for a person to provide convincing and conclusive proof that God does not exist. In order to prove that God does not exist, that person would have to be a God and be able to take me into every corner of the universe and into every dimension and reality simultaneously so that I can see for myself that God does not exist. If a person can do that, then that person is a God, and God really does exist.

On the other hand, if one of the people in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, or Pearl of Great Price really did see God and talk with God, then God exists. Seeing God is proof of God's existence. I can't think of any better proof.

However, atheists like Antony Flew are unwilling to accept the Scriptures and the Revelations of God as evidence and proof; so, they are more likely to be influenced by philosophical proofs of God.

This past year, I have come across some very interesting and convincing philosophical proofs of God, because I went looking for those kinds of things. Here are a few of my favorites:

http://bookrev.allthings.computer/the-p ... of-of-god/

http://bookrev.allthings.computer/c-s-l ... -atheists/

MarkMyWords
Posts: 1113
Contact:

Re: The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#2 » Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:16 pm

I head-lined this particular discussion long ago at this link:

http://ldssoul.com/stealing-from-god/

Enoch
Site Admin
Posts: 274
Contact:

Re: The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#3 » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:19 am

Macro-evolution is the creation of the first living cell from non-living matter. Macro-evolution is also one species giving birth to a completely different species -- reptiles giving birth to a bird or a mammal, for example.

Don't fool yourself! We have no way of knowing whether macro-evolution has happened, or not. Just because it isn't observed in a science lab or in the fossil record doesn't mean that macro-evolution has never happened.

However, there is one thing that we do know for a surety. If macro-evolution has ever happened, it would have been as miraculous as a virgin giving birth, or converting water into wine, or resurrection from the dead.

Macro-evolution falls into the category or the type that we classify as miracles. If macro-evolution ever happened, it was a miracle. And, who is the only One that we know of that works miracles? If macro-evolution took place, it would have had to have been an act of God. If macro-evolution ever happened, then it is yet another proof of God's existence.

Isaiah
Posts: 111

Re: The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#4 » Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:21 am

You forgot to include C. S. Lewis. He developed some interesting philosophical proofs of God's existence. The others will often quote C. S. Lewis.


Moderator Reply:

Correct.

So, what do you think about this book?

http://bookrev.allthings.computer/c-s-l ... -atheists/

Darwin Bagley

Isaiah
Posts: 111

Re: The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#5 » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:41 pm


Enoch
Site Admin
Posts: 274
Contact:

Re: The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#6 » Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:25 pm

This is the most important scripture of them all:

Genesis 1: 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

From what existed before this universe, God created this universe. God created time, space, matter, and energy as we currently know them. If God can do it once, then God can do it again. God was the First Cause. This universe and our earth were the effects of God's actions. God is love, and light, and truth.

If we know this scripture to be true, then we know that naturalism, Darwinism, and macro-evolution are false. Do you see how powerful this scripture really is? It sets the framework for everything else that is to follow. It settles all of the debates before they even start.

MarkMyWords
Posts: 1113
Contact:

Re: The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#7 » Sat Nov 21, 2015 2:43 pm

I, personally, have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to develop a philosophical proof of God's existence that is universally convincing to everyone, because there will always be someone out there who will take that leap of faith and unilaterally conclude for himself that one of the premises is false, no matter how obviously true and self-evident that premise seems to be to all the rest of us.

It seems totally logical to me that if one follows the infinite regress long enough from one effect to its cause and then back to that cause's cause, eventually you will run up against the wall and find yourself staring at the original self-existing uncaused First Cause or Prime Mover.

Yet, I have encountered skeptics and atheists who will declare in principle that there is no such thing as a First Cause or an Uncaused Cause and claim that everything is self-existing and uncaused. Some skeptics and atheists will declare in principle that there was no cause and effect before the Big Bang, although I can't visualize any way that they could possibly know for sure, thus their conclusion is that the Big Bang was uncaused or inevitable or self-caused or some such. Other atheists and skeptics will use word-play and sophistry to turn every effect into a cause and thus conclude that everything is self-causing. No amount of scientific evidence will convince them otherwise. According to these people, matter just automatically organizes itself into living cells and complex life forms.

If you beg the question, and input any of these conclusions into any argument as one of the premises, then it is logical to conclude that God is not needed and that God does not exist. If you put "nothing" into any argument as one of the premises, then you are going to end up with "nothing" as your conclusion. The atheists and the agnostics do this all the time. They just drop the "non-existence of God" or the "non-existence of a First Cause" into each and every philosophical argument as one of the premises, and thus end up concluding that God and First Causes do not exist. It's inevitable.

Philosophically, you can derive any conclusion that you desire simply by adjusting the premises to your liking.

So, no matter what you choose to put down as your premises for any philosophical argument, you will always find some people who will concoct some kind of way to deny the truthfulness or the validity of one of those premises if not all of them. There's no way to prove conclusively through philosophy to everyone's satisfaction that God exists, just as there is no way to prove philosophically that God does not exist. Philosophical proof is over-rated, but it does seem to sell books. Using philosophy you can derive any conclusion you desire simply by adjusting the premises or denying the truthfulness of your opponent's premises. That's why God had to reveal Himself to us, so that we would actually know that He exists, and thus be able to give the philosophical premises that permit His existence greater weight and value when comparing those premises against the premises that deny God an existence.

God revealed Himself and His existence to us in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. If you input those four books as your premises and give them a fair, and logical, and prayerful hearing, then it is logical to conclude that God exists, because He has indeed revealed His existence to us by speaking to some of us and appearing to some of us as recorded in those books. God had to reveal Himself to us, or He would have remained forever unknown! That's just the true reality of the situation.

MarkMyWords
Posts: 1113
Contact:

Re: The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#8 » Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:27 pm

I still love a philosophical proof of God, and I tend to collect all of them that I can, because I am willing and able to buy into the premises and take the necessary leap of faith and conclude that the premises are true.

Yet, we have all run into that atheistic philosopher who has mastered the Hegelian Dialectic or some other technique; and you both can be standing outside in the sunshine, and he will point up to the sun, deny its existence, and then proceed to prove to you logically and philosophically that the sun is not shining and that the sun does not exist.

If you buy into all of his premises, you will be left with the conclusion that the sun isn't shining and that the sun does not exist, even while the sun is shining down upon you.

That's the power of philosophical sophistry, and that's also the bane or the worthless aspect of philosophical debate. You can have any conclusion you want simply by adjusting the premises and convincing your "victim" that your premises are true.

But, what good is a philosophical proof if it proves a lie to be true? How does that help anyone?

MarkMyWords
Posts: 1113
Contact:

Re: The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#9 » Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:23 pm

Let's flesh this out a bit.

I'm a scientist. I have chosen to believe in the Law of Causality. It rings true to me. Now, I have encountered atheists, skeptics, scientists, and theologians who actually deny the veracity of the Law of Causality, and there's nothing that I can say or present to them to convince them that they are wrong.

In contrast, I have encountered many atheists, skeptics, scientists, philosophers, and theologians who truly believe that the Big Bang is an EFFECT.

Philosophical Premise or Scientific Hypothesis: The Big Bang is an effect.

Now, if this premise is 100% true and you believe it to be true, then the question naturally and logically follows, "Who or what caused the Big Bang."

I personally have chosen to stand in this particular camp.

Why?

I have chosen to believe all of the scientific evidence that proves to me that the Big Bang really happened and that the Big Bang was the beginning of our particular universe. I also choose to believe Genesis 1: 1, which says that in the beginning God created this universe. I have scientific evidence that supports my belief and I have revelatory evidence from God that supports my belief. I choose to believe the evidence.

Now, like I have said previously, I have run into many scientists, atheists, agnostics, and theologians who deliberately and knowingly choose to believe that my premise is false. Remember, my chosen premise is that the Big Bang is an effect. There are two camps that I am aware of that fit into this particular category, and deny the validity and veracity of my chosen premise.

The first camp consists of the scientists and the philosophers and theologians who choose to believe that the Big Bang never happened. They choose to believe that our universe is Eternal and never had a beginning and thus never needed a cause. They deny the scientific evidence and they deny the scriptural evidence, and then logically conclude that there is no First Cause because our universe is Eternal.

The second camp chooses to believe the scientific evidence, but they reject the scriptural evidence. Therefore, this second camp chooses to believe that the Big Bang is the First Cause.

Both camps deny the truthfulness of my premise that "the Big Bang is an effect", and then they insert premises of their own that fit their chosen beliefs. Simple enough!

Like I said, using philosophy, you can derive any conclusion that you desire by changing the premises. Philosophy is slippery and can't be nailed down. You will always find someone who will deny the truthfulness of your chosen premise.

In the book, "Who Designed the Designer", Michael Augros starts with the Law of Causality as his first premise. It makes perfect logical sense to me, because I have bought into that premise -- the belief that there has to be some kind of First Cause or Prime Mover behind all of this. However, I have met theologians, atheists, scientists, and philosophers who categorically deny that premise and make the claim that there is no First Cause because our universe is Eternal. I have also run into a few people who believe in the Law of Causality and the existence of a First Cause, but they choose to believe that the Big Bang is the First Cause.

Then you will even get a few nut-cases like David Hume who will prove philosophically that there is no such thing as cause and effect, and others will jump on the bandwagon and declare that everything is self-causing thus essentially eliminating effects from existence. Some will even try to convince us that everything is an effect, and thus in the end nothing has a cause. You can twist this thing any way that you want to, because it's philosophy.

But, what good is a philosophical proof if it proves a lie to be true?

David Hume's material feels like junk and feels like a lie masquerading as the truth, but many people have swallowed his philosophy hook, line, and sinker. Such is the nature of philosophy. With philosophy, you can have anything that you want.

On Amazon in the reviews of the book "Who Designed the Designer" by Michael Augros, there are a couple of people who deny the validity and the veracity and the existence of the First Cause; and thus, the whole argument or philosophical proof falls apart for them. That is their right. They can deny the existence of a First Cause or the existence of God, if they want to. This is philosophy after all. Philosophy has always been the weakest link in any kind of proof. They have the right to deny the existence of God and a First Cause; but, we have the right to choose not to go there with them. I have as much a right to choose to believe in the validity and truthfulness and existence of the First Cause as they have to choose to believe that there is no such thing. And, I actually have scriptural evidence to support my choice. When it comes to our universe, God said, "I did it"; and, I choose to take Him at His word.

I choose to go with the preponderance of the evidence, which leads me to believe that the Big Bang is an effect. The scientific evidence can be and typically is interpreted in that manner; and, Genesis 1: 1 says that it is so. According to Genesis, our universe had a beginning, and God was the cause of that beginning. So, I choose to go with scripture, and I choose to go with God on this one. God tells us that He was there and that He saw how it was done. God tells us plainly that He caused our universe or created our universe; and, I choose to believe that He is telling us the truth. For me, God's claims and God's pronouncements are infinitely more valid and substantial than some self-proclaimed philosopher stating that the First Cause is invalid and does not exist.

Obviously, you can choose to believe anything that you want to believe, even if you have absolutely no evidence to support your chosen belief. Such is the nature of philosophy and philosophical belief. Every day there are people out there who will choose to believe that the lies are true.

C'est la vie!

MarkMyWords
Posts: 1113
Contact:

Re: The Philosophical Proof of God

Post#10 » Sun Nov 22, 2015 12:51 pm

When it comes to the book "Who Designed the Designer" by Michael Augros, there are people who are incapable of accepting and unwilling to accept the truthfulness of the first chapter. These people don't have the ability to see the truths contained within the first chapter; so for them, the whole argument falls apart before it even gets started. So, why go on to the second chapter if they can't even accept the first chapter as being true?

Philosopher Michael Augros truly believes that he has developed a bulletproof philosophical proof of God's existence; but, there are dozens of people out here in the real world who are unable and unwilling to accept Michael's first premise as being true. For them, the argument falls apart right at the very beginning. These people can't take the initial leap of faith that's required, so how can we expect them to be able to follow the proof all the way through to the end?

I debated the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Intelligent Design Sciences with a Facebook opponent. In all things, he started with the premise or the assumption or the conclusion that God does not exist, and then he kept adjusting my premises and my arguments to match his original conclusion. After he got done watering down my premises and turning them into strawmen, then he would kill these things dead and declare victory.

You see, this individual had absolutely no interest whatsoever in discovering the truth. His only interest was in adjusting my premises to his pre-selected strawman form, so that he could win the debate. He wanted to deceive us, just as he had successfully deceived himself. Self-deception works, and it works every time. He didn't want to find the truth; he wanted to win the debate. He was simply incapable of accepting my premises as being true. Therefore, I was never able to help him see the truth or find the truth. He didn't want the truth. He simply wanted to win the argument and establish his self-deceptions as the truth. So be it.

With philosophy, you can have any conclusion that you want just as long as you are willing to keep adjusting the premises until they produce the conclusion that you want. With philosophy, you can prove any lie to be true -- just keep adjusting those premises until you succeed.

But, what good is a philosophical proof if it proves a lie to be true?

Some of us want to know the truth of all things, God's Truth, the truth as God Himself sees it. We are even willing to abandon the philosophical debate, if by doing so we can actually get down to the Truth. When you know the Truth, it sets you free! Knowing the Truth is infinitely better than successfully proving a lie to be true. If my debating opponents prefer the lies over the truth, that is their right and they are welcome to it. But, they shouldn't expect me to want to go there with them. I have already been there and done that, and I don't ever want to do it again. That is my right!

God has revealed Himself to us in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. If I want to know the truth, God's Truth, the truth as God Himself sees it, then I deliberately choose to turn to those books first and make everything else fit with the premises and the truths that are revealed to us in those books. I deliberately choose premises that are supported and backed by evidence that is found in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I don't go into this blind. When I was atheist, I went into everything blind. But, now that I'm theist, I seek scriptural evidence and revelations from God to support my premises, conclusions, and beliefs. My goals are different now. Now, I want to know the Truth, the truth as God Himself sees it. Such a pursuit produces completely different premises than the ones that the skeptics get when they start with the conclusion that God does not exist.

When it comes to philosophy, you can have any conclusion that you want simply by choosing the premises that you want.

Return to “Proof of God”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron