A proof of God's self-evidence

[midas77]

Hardly. If you want to prove it to a believer, then your standards don't need to be very high -- that whole "preaching to the choir" thing... If you want to prove it to a skeptic, good luck. That's quite a burden of proof to shoulder.

Lets use the standard of reason and assume for a while Kierkegard's leap of faith assertion is false. If the quote above holds any water then for an atheist a mere assertion of an impossbility of a rational proof of God's existence will be poolproof.

Because a purely rational proof will at best lead to a logical tautology that has no relationship to ACTUAL existence outside the proof itself. Though realistically I'd bet that most such proofs will inevitably have circularity and assumptions just below the surface as well.

What is wrong with logical tautology if it adds to knowledge? Prooving that a "three angular close figure" is also a "three sided close figure" adds to the knowledge of a a triangle. I agree that an actual existence can not be derived from a logical tautology and even a logical neccessity. But in the original post starter, it use thomas aguinas which is in my reading does not offer ontological-logical proof but a metaphysical proof.

To say that a rational proof of God's existence is impossible must have its rational foundation too. The only way to do this is to proove the incosistency or the self-contradictory nature of the concept we call God.

[OntheWindowStand]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Hardly. If you want to prove it to a believer, then your standards don't need to be very high -- that whole "preaching to the choir" thing... If you want to prove it to a skeptic, good luck. That's quite a burden of proof to shoulder.

Because a purely rational proof will at best lead to a logical tautology that has no relationship to ACTUAL existence outside the proof itself. Though realistically I'd bet that most such proofs will inevitably have circularity and assumptions just below the surface as well.

You are assuming logic and reason can comprehend EVERYTHING when somthing is shown that can't be the proofs would look outside the proof for the answer.

[Didymos Thomas]

Kierkegaard is the one from whom the "leap of faith" idea famously comes, i.e. belief in God is NOT rational.

Thinkers had suggested that belief in God was not rational for centuries before Kierkegaard. Muslim philosophers recognized this pretty quickly in the middle ages.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Thinkers had suggested that belief in God was not rational for centuries before Kierkegaard. Muslim philosophers recognized this pretty quickly in the middle ages.

And this could be why they so stubbornly cling to their Qu'ran, which, if you look at it closely, alongside of the Torah, Gospels, and Epistles, which it claims to be the fufillment of, there's so many true contradictions; Contradictions / Difficulties in the Qur'an. Faith needs to be tempered by reason, and reason needs to go as far as possible before we play the "faith" card; God is a god of logic, order, and reason; would He expect His followers to be the opposite?

[Didymos Thomas]

And this could be why they so stubbornly cling to their Qu'ran

What do you mean 'stubbornly cling'? If you mean Islamic fundamentalism, this is the result of radicals taking everything in the book literally - which misses the point of the book.

if you look at it closely, alongside of the Torah, Gospels, and Epistles, which it claims to be the fufillment of, there's so many true contradictions; Contradictions / Difficulties in the Qur'an.

The Torah, Gospels and Epistles are also full of contradictions.

Looking through this link you provide, it seems like the author was more interested in finding apparent contradictions in the book rather than understanding the book. Checking the main site, I'm appalled by the blatant misrepresentation of Islam promoted by the site.

Faith needs to be tempered by reason, and reason needs to go as far as possible before we play the "faith" card; God is a god of logic, order, and reason; would He expect His followers to be the opposite?

Depends on which conception of God you appeal to. The notion of God has changed over time. We see contradictory notions of God in the Bible.

[Zetetic11235]

There was a fairly interesting discussion going on in my thread on god proofs that perhapse you might find interesting, protoman.

Here is my take:
In considering anything, such consideration is only an amalgamte of experience such that it cannot exceed that whithin which it is contained, the mind, nor can it include that which cannot be physically experienced or concieved i.e., nothing which is concieved can be anything but a conglomerate of sense experience and a priori cognition applied to it.

It follows that any conception of god must be limited to physical reality and deductions made thereof, and thus the conception of god is of essentially the same nature as any conception derived from experience.

Further, if one wishes to disregard cartesian mind matter dualism, a thought is a part of the physical universe as a chemical trace and thus bounded within the physical, therefore, conception of god is a part of the physical universe supposed to be god's creation and thus a creation of gods.
God must be related in some manner to this universe assuming it to be god's creation, as god is of a nature by which the medium of physical reality can be shaped and indeed created by god, and assuming that god is not only the physical universe, proving god through any mental or physical means is akin to showing a totality by one of its constituent parts. Such an attempt is nonsensical, unless the whole is of the same nature as the part, no more no less, which is a contradiction to the assumption of an extraphysical god.

A few side points of interest include that:
1) The hebrew conception of god is more along the line of god being that which is unknowable
2) It is impossible to prove anything without defining it, and god is not definable universally
3)By citing anyone your argument gains no credibility, authority is not a means to a proof, just putting that out there.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

What do you mean 'stubbornly cling'? If you mean Islamic fundamentalism, this is the result of radicals taking everything in the book literally - which misses the point of the book.



The Torah, Gospels and Epistles are also full of contradictions.

Looking through this link you provide, it seems like the author was more interested in finding apparent contradictions in the book rather than understanding the book. Checking the main site, I'm appalled by the blatant misrepresentation of Islam promoted by the site.



Depends on which conception of God you appeal to. The notion of God has changed over time. We see contradictory notions of God in the Bible.

Well, the author has lectured many times on Islam...go look up "Sam Shamoun". And he can understand the Qu'ran better then most Muslims...trust me, I've seen him debate Islamic clerics and scholars. And there is a difference b/w a true and apparent contradiction, you know. The Bible seems to contradict itself, but if you closely read and understand the text, it becomes perfectly clear...some parts you just have to take on faith, since God is infinite and our finite minds cannot understand Him in His entirity.

Anyway, back to the Qu'ran: it actually says the Bible is superior to it: The Challenge of the Quran & Its Implications for the Muslim Corruption Charges, as well as saying that Mohammed failed the test of being a prophet: Qur'an Contradiction: Did the Jews kill prophets who brought a sacrifice devoured by fire?; also that the Qu'ran affirms the Christian and Jewish scriptures while denying their message -- Islamic views about the Bible --...in order to get around this, Muslims had to develop an unwarranted theory about our Scriptures being corrupted, something which the Qu'ran does not support: What does the Qur'an say about the Jewish and Christian Scriptures --the Qu'ran commands Muslims to uphold and support the Bible!--

Answer that and challenge my faith and reasoning, please; I enjoy it.

[Aedes]

I hear what you're saying, Midas -- I may need to clarify what I meant.

Originally Posted by midas77

To say that a rational proof of God's existence is impossible must have its rational foundation too. The only way to do this is to proove the incosistency or the self-contradictory nature of the concept we call God.

I meant that a rational proof of God's real existence, i.e. outside that realm of logic, is impossible. You can rationally prove anything. But when a theist asserts that God exists, that is an assertion about existence, not about logic, right?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

And this could be why they so stubbornly cling to their Qu'ran...

hmmm, I don't like the sound of that...

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Aedes

hmmm, I don't like the sound of that...

Badly phrased; sorry