Proofs for God were used by early Church theologians to get people to convert to their religion. Now, why would they want--force--others to convert?

I think there can, but they have to involve a bit of cheating. You start with something you know exists. Then you interpret some concept of God is such a way that it is identical to that thing.

If you start with the concept it's much harder. If you start with a relatively naive, literal or prima facie god-concept that one might find in a religious text, or an encyclopaedia, or even a theology book, you'll have a tough job proving it exists.

Or you can take a Jordan Peterson approach, which is interesting but also cheating.

Or you can take a Jordan Peterson approach, which is interesting but also cheating. — bert1

What is that?

Consider what happens when you hit rock bottom insifar the physics is concerned. You know how the cosmos functions. Just assume. Then you ask the question, where did the structure, particles, etc. come from? What is the reason for their existence? Who ordered them? What else than gods can be the reason? Abracadabra, simsalabim, hocus pocus, pilatus pas: "FLASH"! True magic. Add personal epihanies, and there's your proof.

Proofs of God are deductive because one has to start already believing God exists — Jackson

I don't agree, proof of God (ex. philosophical) doesn't require belief but rather logical set of premises that lead to logical conclusion.

My favorite is Anselm's argument.

My favorite is Anselm's argument. — SpaceDweller

That than which nothing greater can be conceived.

But also, the falacious argument that existing is better than not existing, there fore God exists.

Theological arguments assume existence must have a cause.

But also, the falacious argument that existing is better than not existing, there fore God exists. — Jackson

I think existing is better than not existing is subjective because:
A person having trouble living life will favor non existence, while a person living in welfare will favor existence.

That than which nothing greater can be conceived. — Jackson

the meaning here is that, God is a superior being, a superior being mean there is no grater because if it is then a being that is grater is God rather than inferior being.

Theological arguments assume existence must have a cause. — Jackson

what? how?

I think existing is better than not existing is subjective because:
A person having trouble living life will favor non existence, while a person living in welfare will favor existence. — SpaceDweller

Yes, agree with that argument.

the meaning here is that, God is a superior being, a superior being mean there is no grater because if it is then a being that is grater is God rather than inferior being. — SpaceDweller

As Plato would say, it is good to be good. God is the Platonic idea.

what? how? — SpaceDweller

God explains why there is existence.

God explains why there is existence. — Jackson

Ah, why is there something rather than nothing?
Because of God.
Awesome reason indeed! :up:

Hegel brought this to my attention. The ancient greeks asked what the nature of God is. The Christians (Moderns) made God into a proposition about whether God exists or not.

Ah, why is there something rather than nothing?
Because of God.
Awesome reason indeed! — SpaceDweller

Yes, agree.

Hegel brought this to my attention. The ancient greeks asked what the nature of God is. The Christians (Moderns) made God into a proposition about whether God exists or not. — Jackson

It's easy to construct argument about God's existence, but existence and presence of God is 2 fold thing.
1 ) Argument about God only, ex. philosophical argument of O-O-O God
2.) Revelation of God, ex. scriptures.

Issues with No. 2 are motives behind scriptures since we know scriptures are man made texts, what were their motives, divine revelation or ancient wisdom is beyond our ability to prove.

Issues with No. 2 are motives behind scriptures since we know scriptures are man made texts, what were their motives, divine revelation or ancient wisdom is beyond our ability to prove. — SpaceDweller

Bad metaphysics. They made existence into a question.

Just a thought:

Either

(A) g/G "created" everything for a reason; therefore, Reason is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship ...

or

(B) g/G "created" everything arbitraily, without reason, by chance; therefore, Chance (i.e. randomness à la vacuum fluctuation) is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship ...

So what does this "prove"? Nothing but the obvious – (whether or not it exists) g/G is superfluous and does not itself explain or justify anything.

Proof of God is very interesting thing. I don't think we will ever find it except in the case of something like defining "God" like the Kalam Cosmological argument or St. Anselm's argument (I don't find St. Anselm's argument all that convincing, to be fair, despite being an agnostic theist). You do find arguments one way or another that seem convincing to people on both sides of the debate (theists and atheists).

But you're right, there are plenty of things philosophy can't "prove" anyways. How would you prove God doesn't exist? How would you prove other minds exist, or the physical world exists, or that objective moral values/duties exist? Why should we hold belief in God to the same standard?

and

(C) g/G created a world of suffering and loss in order to be worshipped. g/G is a vain dictator who should be scorned.

How would you prove God doesn't exist? — Paulm12

Indeed. I would first want a good reason to hold a view that god/s exist. Which ones and from what stories? All we seem to have are claims and a few old books, no actual deities have shown up except as dreams or delusions.

The time to believe something is when there is good evidence. The existence of life or the notion of 'something rather than nothing', is not evidence of anything in particular.

What if gods can't show up and proof their existence in the way you demand proof to be? Wouldn't their showing up in the flesh disturb the laws and stuff they created? Dreams or the mind would be far more subtle places to appear in and the laws of quantum mechanics don't forbid this. You might say that this is pretty convenient for the believer, of course, but how else can it be? Via the mind they can project themselves, on clouds, in dreams, etc. Or what if they just leave their creation alone. Just look at it?

The time to believe something is when there is good evidence. The existence of life or the notion of 'something rather than nothing', is not evidence of anything in particular. — Tom Storm

Agree with that.

Agree with that. — Jackson

How can there be evidence for gods?

The time to believe something is when there is good evidence — Tom Storm

Then it wouldn't be belief.

How can there be evidence for gods? — Hillary

Yes, I am saying there is not evidence.

(A) g/G "created" everything for a reason; therefore, Reason is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship — 180 Proof

You're irrationally messing up your reasons.

(B) g/G "created" everything arbitraily, without reason, by chance; therefore, Chance (i.e. randomness à la vacuum fluctuation) is divine and g/G is not worthy of worship ... — 180 Proof

Evvery universe emerging from random quantum fluctuations includes evolving life. Which is precisely the reason.

So what does this "prove"? Nothing but the obvious – (whether or not it exists) g/G is superfluous and does not itself explain or justify anything — 180 Proof

This proves your irrationality.

Then why not believe? Because there's no evidence? The circle is closed.

Then why not believe? Because there's no evidence? The circle is closed. — Hillary

I do not know what "the circle is closed" means.

:rofl: Whatever, lil troll.