Arguments of the Proof of God’s Existence.  Part 2 

“”In part oneI’m not sure if I conveyed the meaning I intended. And I am attempting to get at an idea so bear with me…

The first question that comes to mind when I see people talking about the various ways people have argued for the proof of existence of God, but then also by extension the arguments that people put forth for the proof of the nonexistence of God, or atheist arguments.

My question is why would I need them? What are these arguments doing for me?

What is going on in a persons mind that would ask them to put forth such arguments?

I could speculate about these but it would be nice to hear from the people themselves. I simply put it as a case in fact; there are people who adhere to these arguments and battle each other out over why God should exist or why are you doesn’t exist and all these things.

But likewise – I’m not sure what these arguments have to do with me. I’m not sure what they have anything to do with how I proceed in my life or my ethics or morals or lack there of. To me such arguments are very simple exercises in logic. They’re  like mental exercises, like working out the muscle of your brain in various categories, using various clausal structures, various and variable definitions of definite terms. And if there’s a larger sense then their really just arguing over cultural values, in a specific sense of someone who is involved with cultures or subcultures or just groups to think alike whether they are defined labelled or what.

But indeed people like Richard Dawkins feel like they’re addressing something significant. I’m not entirely  sure what the significance is; I think that is the question I’m asking here. But I feel that at least some of the important if not the whole argument itself is really an argument over a way of life. There is nothing to say that atheists won’t get in wars; and there’s nothing to say that religious people will be peaceful. Nor vice versa. It seems like an orderly empty conversation to me.

So if anyone knows any theists as well as any atheists, I would love to for them to come over here and tell me what the significance of the argument is. 

I am not being obstinate or Socratic or playing dumb or anything. I will have to ask my friend Dave over a big story guide why it’s important, but I feel like his answer, because he’s Christian, will be something about saving our souls or something like that. But that’s OK I don’t see anything wrong with a belief that has something to do with your soul; such a believer could lead to being pacifist and such a belief could lead to being violent. I’m not sure why some people see the belief  in God necessarily amounts to some sort of ignorance or lack of education and to believe that arguing atheism somehow conveys intelligence and education; I’m not sure that’s the argument but it would be great if someone from both sides told me what the significance is in their discussion.
So for me it seems apparent that most people would be involved somehow in that argument and saying something to the extent and arguing and such at such a way to say that God doesn’t exist or does exist, and we can’t leave out the agnostics because the term “agnostic” itself is already basically meant argument.

It’s not that I am an atheist or that I am an agnostic. It really is that I’m not sure that these types of questions have any basis in truth. They indeed have a basis in reality, but then one could argue that if the bases is only concerning reality then there’s really no point in discussing it except as we might be discussing it in terms of violence. 

The basic question is how it is possible that we have different opinions on the possibility of things. As well, why we feel it’s important to try to convince people of such beliefs. A further question could shed light: I may have a belief on water usage; does this have the same importance of a belief in God? 

Isn’t is obvious in the coming up against a different belief that yours is merely a belief and thus not based in any truth? Why would a person continue to get so wrapped up in the attempt to challenge others beliefs? 


  1. Wrong about anything. I want to know for sure. With significance. Why an argument. For the proof of the existence of God should have any baring on my existence. That I’m wrong about not having any feeling around it whatsoever. Hows that?

    Hey here is another approach:

    Why do you think the most faithful telling of our Big a Story has any significance? What makes that significant?

    The most faithful telling of the One Ring is the the JRR Tolkien novels. It is not difficult to believe that there is a One Ring that has yet to be found again today. It would explain a lot .

    I mean. What is it about proof that is causing you to have faith? What is it about the faithful telling that requires you to have faith? Does that make sense?

    1. I just told you that I think you are wrong when you say that what matters is that people are happy with their belief.

      What makes you think that is essential, that is what matters?

      1. People who are happy in their belief. Humility. Sacrifice.

        I think those are all interesting things. It’s just that they need context. You have shown up at the Hindu woman’s bedside and told us that these are the things that matter. Can you articulate the most faithful telling of our story that helps me understand how and why people are essentially oriented toward one another; happy in our beliefs, humble, and willing to sacrifice for one another? It seems to me that there is a story that gives context to those “things that matter.” It would help tremendously if you could articulate it.

        I think the most faithful telling of our story involves a creator God who created humanity and loves humanity. But, the loving relationship between God and humanity has been profoundly damaged. The good news is, God has acted to restore our relationship. God acted, in Jesus, to restore our relationship. Jesus died and rose from the dead, both accomplishing God’s purpose to restore our relationship and confirming that God will continue to act until His purpose is fully accomplished.

        Why does this matter? Because we were created to love God, to thrive in His love, and to thrive together, loving each other.

      2. I don’t think it matters what the context of me feeling of peace is, for example.

        When I am at peace I am at peace. There is no context for that peace except that I’m at peace. the context is self fulfilling , in a manner of speaking.

        It is only when I ask question into it, that I begin to tell myself a story.

        The issue involved in this has to do with whether or not the story that I begin to tell myself is related to any actual truth of the matter. In what context do I gain the truth? Am I verified because I see it in a book? Is the book have more veracity then the fact that when I go out into the world there’s a bunch of other people who have been telling themselves other stories that for fill the completion of what the world is in the same way that this book is telling me that it is the most faithful telling of our world story?

        Do I had here more to the book because it seems to reflect the story that I’m telling myself more then when I go out into the world and I talk to other people the stories that they tell me about their books and about there for filling faithfulstory!

        Could it be that this most faithful telling of our world story is just a story that I’m telling myself that I then go out and project over everything else? Could it be that as I go and I project this story out on the world that I completely negate everyone else’s story for the sake of this one story? And the contradiction involved in those two kinds of evidence is what I’m really holding onto when I say I’m having faith ? or that this one story is a more faithful telling of it all?

        One might even say that the story is a way to upset what is peaceful. And actually if we look at the context of our conversation right here it seems to support that the idea of some grand narrative is actually for the sole purpose of not having peace, of not being humble , of not being content in oneself.

        It seems in so much is I need to confirm to myself what is peaceful or somehow prove to myself that I am at peace, or even insomuch as I may be at peace that I have to prove it to someone else; there is a certain manner of argument that would say insomuch as I have to try to convince myself that peace is peaceful , where that humility is something more than being humble as if something else needs to justify my peaceful Ness to myself- some would say that is involved with an inherent violence. Some people might even go so far as to say that as I have faith in something like a story that tells me that I need to go to tell other people of the truthfulness of the story, that i am involved in an errand of violence.

      3. No errand of violence here.

        Humanity shares a story. What is the most faithful telling of that story?

        I think it’s an essential question.

      4. Is that story something that requires of yourself ‘belief’? Or is it something that you can’t help but know is true?

        Do you have to ‘make’ yourself believe it? Is there something off about the story that would make you have to believe it despite yourself?

      5. If you chose not to believe the Bible would it then not be a faithful telling of humanities story, or would it still be , yet you are choosing not to believe it?

      6. I think The Bible is the most faithful telling of our story, whether I believe it or not. Is that what you are asking?

      7. It would appear to me that the comment I just made before this one actually describes what you were talking about in your comment that this is a reply to.

        That the relationship with God has been damaged. And this damage is already in the parent in so much is I see the justification of my piece and something that is not me, I’m in so much is I looked for the justification of my peacefulness in something else besides the fact of peacefulness I am evidencing the kind of damage between myself and what is essentially could be called the God that is within me. I therefore go out into the world and look for something that can solve this problem that is inherently involved with my perception in my activity of going and projecting that perception upon the world. Are you there for for fill my prophetic experience, my activity of going out into something that is not me to find something that will solve me, something that will fix the damage, and indeed I find it in a book and this book talks about Christ.

        So there are two ways to go about fixing this damage: either I can read that book as a telling of myself of my own experiences of my own way of coming up on this world; or I can read this book as a telling us something that is not me as if I am separate from it other Christ that I can believe in that therefore fixes the damage.

        Both ways solve the problem. And then the perpetuation of the problem also takes different forms

      8. Sorry sometimes I’m voice dictating and sometimes I’m sitting at my computer. I think you can tell which one is which. Lol.

    1. Hey Arnold slight tangent: are you familiar with the Shakespeare quote that I don’t know which play it’s from: “a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet”. ?

      What do you make of that?

      1. I’m sorry, I thought somebody named Arnold had come into the conversation. Seriously. “Hey Arnold?” What was that supposed to be?

        Anyway, “a rose by any other name. . . .” Are you suggesting, “God by any name is just as Godish — or something like that?

        I am interested in that Godishness, and I would love to hear the story of humanity in relation to the Godish. Please, tell it to me.

      2. Lol. Can God be called anything else. I think that is what I’m asking? Is God powerful enough to be ‘more that God’?

  2. I don’t know how well I understand your question. And by the way, whatever technology you’re using to dictate your posts doesn’t make it in Tyrolea easy to understand you even when you’re not trying to be so Craddick.

    When somebody asks me why I believe in God — and especially when they ask me not to appeal to The Bible — I find emphases from the cosmological and teleological arguments helpful.

    And, why are such discussions significant? I suppose because some people would like to know if there is a God.

    By the way, did you lose track of my response to you on our other thread or lose interest?

    1. Hi. Oh. No I didn’t lose interest I don’t think I ever got a message that you had replied. Are usually get a message when there’s a response I’ll have to look back through it maybe I just missed it I know no no no no Eugene can’t do that can’t do that can I just go this way come on you’re ago.

      I guess I’m saying about the arguments for god don’t really get anywhere further than the arguments against God. Because I think they rely on some sort of fundamental experience of being that you’re trying to prove to everyone else. The atheists do the same thing they just wanted mitt that “god “is involved in their “atheism “. Lol.

      1. I was talking with a friend recently, and he asked me why I believe that there is a God. So, I mentioned to him that, in the same way that an old-time pocket watch suggests that there was someone who brought order to such materials as metal and glass to make the watch, I think that order within our world suggests the existence of an order giver.

        Do you see value in that sort of conversation?

      2. Yeah. I can see that. But what I’m saying is Which Orderer is it? Is it the Islamists that think it perfectly orderful that a man can do whatever he wants to his wife, including throw acid on her face? Or perhaps the orderer who tells people that they should use no technology of the modern sort, no cars they can only use animal driven vehicles?

        I’m not saying that those various arguments of the proof of the existence of God I’m not valuable. In fact I’m saying that there are people who indeed find those kind of arguments valuable.

        I’m just saying that I don’t find any value in them. It’s not that I disagree with them; but also it’s not that I disagree with atheists like Richard Dawkins who use logic to come to their conclusions about atheism. Both sides make sense but they don’t make me mean either way. But likewise I wouldn’t say I am agnostic because that is saying that I don’t know, or more precisely that there is equal chances of God existing in God not existing. I am not agnostic. If I believe there is a God then it functions that way for me in every way that God should. And if I make an argument about atheism that like wise functions the way that it should for the meaning that’s intended. But the results of those arguments don’t sway me in either direction. To me it’s like a moot point.

        But I’m not saying that God doesn’t exist. I’m just saying that those kind of questions really don’t get anywhere for me they don’t do anything for me they don’t and large in my experience of God they don’t shorten it or make it smaller; they don’t make me care more or less about human beings.

        I’m not disqualifying that those arguments function the way they’re supposed to function. I’m just asking someone to tell me what the significance of an argument that proves the existence of God, compared to an argument that proves the nonexistence of God. From either camp I’m asking what is the significance of either of those arguments.

        I understand that they are significant for the people who use them and go back-and-forth and have these discussions. But I’m asking them, and maybe I’m asking you, to tell me what is significant about them so I can have that significance take hold in my life.

        But again I’m not saying that I don’t believe in God or that I do believe in God; it depends on the context that I’m speaking to.

        If there was an old Hindu woman who believed that her soul was going to be reincarnated or Vishnu this or Krishna that, and whatever else they believe in: if this old woman who had been making daily devotions her whole life to these various Hindu gods was dying and was asking me for some compassion while she transitions from life to death — it’s not very important to me that I convert her to believing in Christ or believing in the one God through the ontological argument or something like that. I have no stake in trying to convince her that her lifelong believes are incorrect.

        Anyways. I’m not saying that those arguments are wrong I’m just saying that given all the arguments there are for various things in the world they really don’t move me to believe or not believe; The logic that may accompany them do not cause me to have a more deeper faith or more substantial understanding that leads to some true knowledge I have or something like that I don’t even know how I would describe what I’m trying to say to you that’s why I’m just kind of going on and on. Lol.


      3. Following your Hindu woman example, if it’s true that she is destined to be reincarnated and to continue her journey toward reunification with, or re-absorption into, the universal spirit, then I would want her to believe that.

        If it’s true that “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him,” then I would want her to believe that. (Bible quote from Hebrews 9:27-28).

      4. I suppose the issue is how do you know that what the woman knows is not true?

        I suspect that there is sufficient doubt that I would allow her her comfort in her last few hours. Even if I was Christian, I would hope Christ and God would understand my compassion. If he didn’t then I wouldn’t believe what he has to say. .

        I suppose I’m saying that there is no amount of reasoning or logic that would bring me to be required to believe anything about God. But likewise there is reason to suppose that any assertion about God is necessarily biased.

        I would bet that someone else always has the better possibility of know

      5. If the most faithful telling of our story is that a person is destined to die once and to face judgment, then what would be compassionate about not challenging her belief that she will be reincarnated over and over until she returns to the universal spirit?

      6. If it is true, then it would not be compassionate. I do not know what is true of God. Even what I might think is the most faithful telling is still not true, but only what I am thinking. What is true of what is know is partial and probably false, from the God perspective 😁 But I do know that woman is most certain about what she knows as true. Just as probably you are certain of your truth.

      7. …in fact. The only reason I am discussing these things with you is because you welcome it. But I do not go around challenging Christians to their superstition. What I know doesn’t matter. What matters is that they are happy with their belief. If they want to talk about it, I will guage them as to how engaged they want to get. I will not offend someone’s beliefs unless they are available and open to hearing the potential faults. But most people do not have the intelligence nor the integrity to not get personally offended when you get all philosophical.

        As I have told you even: You are not choosing to believe because you are incapable of not believing.

        Can you imagine anything. I could say to you that would cause you to abandon you belief?

      8. …. you know: in fact in fact, I have a superstition also. The difference between yours and mine is that I’m trying to get people to prove to me that mine is incorrect. 😜

      9. “What I know doesn’t matter. What matters is that [people] are happy with their belief.”

        That is a huge statement.

        You have created this situation in which you have placed me at the bedside of a dying Hindu woman where she is resting in her belief that she is on a journey that may or may not bring her back into this material world as she moves toward transcendence and into a more pure integration with ultimate reality.

        I would like for her to know that The Bible says,

        “people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. Jesus was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” (Hebrews 9:27-28).

        Now, you have joined us at her bedside and you have suggested, “What matters is that people are happy with their belief.”

        Again (and again and again and again — I know), I would ask you for context. What is the big story in which it is the case that “what matters is that people are happy with their belief.”

        I disagree with you. In the most faithful telling of our story, what matters is not that people are happy with their belief.

      10. Neither would I try to tell you on your death bed that your faithful telling is a fantasy. I would confirm to you and agree with you that you are absolutely correct. And Jesus will welcome
        You. So Rest easy in your faith.

        But you are not in your last hours asking me to comfort you.

        I am asking you to convince me I’m wrong. You are not succeeding at my request so far. 🌈

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s