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

[Zarith]

Common arguments for the existence of God (such as the ontological argument, the teleological argument, first cause, cosmology, etc), only get you as far as an abstract notion of some sort of god -- the kind that philosophers talk about (if you accept the arguments, that is).

If you believe that the God of the Bible really exists and has the properties ascribed to him by this book, then other means are required to justify belief in this specific God. Typically this comes down to either scriptural authority, or divine revelation, or some combination of the two (for example, belief in the truth of the message of the biblical prophets is belief in both of these things). Am I omitting anything here? Note that I am including 'personal experience with God' under the umbrella of revelation, as God revealing himself to you.

But if you are willing to accept revelation / scripture as vehicles for determining truth from falsehood, then what is the point in attempting to construct a logical argument for the existence of God in the abstract? You already have what you consider proof of his existence, and a logical argument won't prove that your particular God exists. If you are trying to convince someone, they will still have to accept scriptural authority or divine revelation, will they not?

If belief in revelation / scripture is both necessary and sufficient, and logic alone is insufficient -- why bother?

[Jackalope]

Insecurity?

[Rahul]

Probably because in today's world most individuals want to at least try to be logical. It's fun sometimes watching theists do mental sommersaults trying to stuff an illogical belief into a logical framework.

[Simon Moon]

Insecurity?

This.

I'll bet the number of believers that have been convinced by any of the philosophic arguments (T.A.G., cosmological, ontological, etc) for the existence of a god is extremely low.

These arguments are used primarily to help the believer justify his/her already existing beliefs to be more rational in their own mind. They are trying to convince themselves that their beliefs are based on logic, and not just faith.

The evidence is that even after being showed the glaring fallacies that they all contain are pointed out, they do not stop using the arguments.

[CapnAwesome]

I've often wondered the same thing. Why bother trying to make secular arguments in the defense of religion. The type of logic that they apply wasn't used by the various churches for the vast majority of their history. That's why faith is put up as such a virtue. If you accept faith as a virtue why bother with the rest? It actually extends way beyond the God of the bible. People are expected to give secular reasoning in defense of any religious idea. Be it Buddhist 'philosophy' or the Muslim dress code or 'proof' of the Resurrection. That's why these arguments all sound so hollow and shitty They started out as thousand year old arguments and until recently were just accepted on faith. Now they have to defend them and resort to making up whatever crap they have to in order to defend it.

[Godscreated]

Common arguments for the existence of God (such as the ontological argument, the teleological argument, first cause, cosmology, etc), only get you as far as an abstract notion of some sort of god -- the kind that philosophers talk about (if you accept the arguments, that is).

If you believe that the God of the Bible really exists and has the properties ascribed to him by this book, then other means are required to justify belief in this specific God. Typically this comes down to either scriptural authority, or divine revelation, or some combination of the two (for example, belief in the truth of the message of the biblical prophets is belief in both of these things). Am I omitting anything here? Note that I am including 'personal experience with God' under the umbrella of revelation, as God revealing himself to you.

But if you are willing to accept revelation / scripture as vehicles for determining truth from falsehood, then what is the point in attempting to construct a logical argument for the existence of God in the abstract? You already have what you consider proof of his existence, and a logical argument won't prove that your particular God exists. If you are trying to convince someone, they will still have to accept scriptural authority or divine revelation, will they not?

If belief in revelation / scripture is both necessary and sufficient, and logic alone is insufficient -- why bother?

Who's trying to prove God exist, I'm not and I do not believe I've seen any Christian here try it, most of us believe that it is God's work to prove He is real. God asks us to be a witness for Him and then He will draw people to Himself and let them decide to believe or not. Even the scriptures do not try to prove God's existence.

[Minimalist]

most of us believe that it is God's work to prove He is real.

The fire the fuck because he sucks at it.

You just can't get good help anymore.

[ronedee]

Insecurity?


This.

I'll bet the number of believers that have been convinced by any of the philosophic arguments (T.A.G., cosmological, ontological, etc) for the existence of a god is extremely low.

No... this wasn't part of our Sunday school lessons.

This was in some ways: Quinque viae

These arguments are used primarily to help the believer justify his/her already existing beliefs to be more rational in their own mind. They are trying to convince themselves that their beliefs are based on logic, and not just faith.

No again.... GC was right in that we of Faith aren't trying to convince anyone of God's existence...including ourselves.

There's nothing "rational" about God. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways," declares the LORD"

Your logic is convincing yourself of things that are not understood, or believed!

The evidence is that even after being showed the glaring fallacies that they all contain are pointed out, they do not stop using the arguments.

What "glaring fallacies" would that be? Because you don't have Faith, "they all" are not logical.

[max-greece]

Common arguments for the existence of God (such as the ontological argument, the teleological argument, first cause, cosmology, etc), only get you as far as an abstract notion of some sort of god -- the kind that philosophers talk about (if you accept the arguments, that is).

If you believe that the God of the Bible really exists and has the properties ascribed to him by this book, then other means are required to justify belief in this specific God. Typically this comes down to either scriptural authority, or divine revelation, or some combination of the two (for example, belief in the truth of the message of the biblical prophets is belief in both of these things). Am I omitting anything here? Note that I am including 'personal experience with God' under the umbrella of revelation, as God revealing himself to you.

But if you are willing to accept revelation / scripture as vehicles for determining truth from falsehood, then what is the point in attempting to construct a logical argument for the existence of God in the abstract? You already have what you consider proof of his existence, and a logical argument won't prove that your particular God exists. If you are trying to convince someone, they will still have to accept scriptural authority or divine revelation, will they not?

If belief in revelation / scripture is both necessary and sufficient, and logic alone is insufficient -- why bother?

Who's trying to prove God exist, I'm not and I do not believe I've seen any Christian here try it, most of us believe that it is God's work to prove He is real. God asks us to be a witness for Him and then He will draw people to Himself and let them decide to believe or not. Even the scriptures do not try to prove God's existence.

Go onto youtube. Search for Christopher Hitchens. Watch any of the debates with Christians. As far as I can recall they ALL attempt to cite evidence for God through all of the arguments mentioned.

I would be very surprised if such arguments have not been put forward on this forum really.

[ReasonableRuben]

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.