If you believe in the God of the Bible, why try to prove it logically?

[Minimalist]

The logic of justice.

In what alternate reality is rape and murder of women and children considered to be justice?

Jesusland.

[ronedee]

When you are in LOVE, do you try to prove your GIRL exists? No. We talk about the girl of course...but the FEELINGS we have inside about that relationship are what makes us happy.

Our spiritual FAITH in GOD is what we are talking about. The path to Him, and the JOY it brings as a result.

No need to prove anything but Faith.

But then, we CAN prove that the girl exists. Not so much with respect to your god, I'm afraid.

Can we?!!! I had a friend with a girl that stuttered really bad! Smokin' bod but she would open her mouth, my friends and I fell about the place laughing!

Never saw her after that.....He hid her and the kids in a closet for years!

[Cato]

When you are in LOVE, do you try to prove your GIRL exists? No. We talk about the girl of course...but the FEELINGS we have inside about that relationship are what makes us happy.

Our spiritual FAITH in GOD is what we are talking about. The path to Him, and the JOY it brings as a result.

No need to prove anything but Faith.

I am so fucking confused right now. Did you name your blow-up doll FAITH or JOY?

[ronedee]

When you are in LOVE, do you try to prove your GIRL exists? No. We talk about the girl of course...but the FEELINGS we have inside about that relationship are what makes us happy.

Our spiritual FAITH in GOD is what we are talking about. The path to Him, and the JOY it brings as a result.

No need to prove anything but Faith.

I am so fucking confused right now. Did you name your blow-up doll FAITH or JOY?

Stay confused! I don't want you to get too excited...you may have a ED heart attack or somthin!

[Zarith]

I can think of at least one reason: a certain person might reject revelation on the basis that the God of said revelation is purported to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. "But," claims the person, "you have not presented any arguments for the claim that such a being exists." So you employ rational argumentation.

But revelation says he does exist. So if a person requires a logical proof of his existence, then they do not accept revelation. Because logical arguments for the existence of God-in-the-abstract are not arguments for the veracity of revelation, why should their beliefs as to revelation change after hearing such an argument?

If they do not accept revelation, then what basis can they have for believing in one particular being with the 3 omni- attributes versus any other?

Why use logic to answer the question "Does God exist?" and then go on to use revelation to answer "What is God like?"

[Cato]

I am so fucking confused right now. Did you name your blow-up doll FAITH or JOY?

Stay confused! I don't want you to get too excited...you may have a ED heart attack or somthin!

ED? I asked about Faith and Joy, but you proclaim ED! That's cool, although if its name is ED...who's fucking who?

[fr0d0]

In what alternate reality is rape and murder of women and children considered to be justice?

Ooh... I see you changed the words. On this new and unrelated topic I must agree with you.

---

Firstly, can I say that I find the god of the bible to be a logical god, and that the concept stands up to scrutiny. Also, some philosophical arguments address the nature and attributes of the Christian God.

I notice you've been saying this a lot lately, but that whenever you do you fail to detail exactly what it is about your god that's logical and consistent with a realistic worldview. Could you? It's kind of hard to consider it when it's just a bare assertion.

It's a complex subject I think. Perhaps not though.
If you start to think about a god and how that might work, you are forced to make certain conclusions.
I think the starting point is creation/ first cause, and a creator god. To create, god has to be a positive force. A negative force cannot create. A god cannot be created or it is not god. So a god must be timeless. A positive, originating force has to also be good, as good entails this.

And so on.

[orogenicman]

I can think of at least one reason: a certain person might reject revelation on the basis that the God of said revelation is purported to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. "But," claims the person, "you have not presented any arguments for the claim that such a being exists." So you employ rational argumentation.

But revelation says he does exist. So if a person requires a logical proof of his existence, then they do not accept revelation. Because logical arguments for the existence of God-in-the-abstract are not arguments for the veracity of revelation, why should their beliefs as to revelation change after hearing such an argument?

If they do not accept revelation, then what basis can they have for believing in one particular being with the 3 omni- attributes versus any other?

Why use logic to answer the question "Does God exist?" and then go on to use revelation to answer "What is God like?"

But as Thomas Paine pointed out, revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is obligated to believe one person's revelation other that of another. Farmer Bob may be the most honest, god-fearing man anyone has ever known, but we still need evidence that a UFO landed in his corn field.

[Esquilax]

It's a complex subject I think. Perhaps not though.
If you start to think about a god and how that might work, you are forced to make certain conclusions.
I think the starting point is creation/ first cause, and a creator god. To create, god has to be a positive force. A negative force cannot create. A god cannot be created or it is not god. So a god must be timeless. A positive, originating force has to also be good, as good entails this.

And so on.

That does nothing to demonstrate the existence of that god in the first place, though. The first cause argument has about as much evidence for it as any other creation hypothesis at the moment, in terms of having nothing even approaching conclusive, and yet you've aligned yourself with a religion rather than agnosticism, so there must be something in it that's convinced you.

Besides, why can't a god be created? The Greek pantheon is full of gods with children and all... it really just depends on which god you're subscribing to.

[orogenicman]

In what alternate reality is rape and murder of women and children considered to be justice?

Ooh... I see you changed the words. On this new and unrelated topic I must agree with you.

Erm, what? What words did I change?

It's a complex subject I think. Perhaps not though.
If you start to think about a god and how that might work, you are forced to make certain conclusions.
I think the starting point is creation/ first cause, and a creator god. To create, god has to be a positive force. A negative force cannot create. A god cannot be created or it is not god. So a god must be timeless. A positive, originating force has to also be good, as good entails this.

And so on.

Electrons have a negative charge, and thus are a negative force. And yet they are used to create many things, including the words you see on your computer monitor.