In this world we may find lots of ungodliness people. We also find lots of people who love to say there is no god at all are there can not be a God.
The Thousand-Year View which tries to show how the ideas of great Jewish philosophers apply to modern society and dares to tackle the subject of that UnseenEternal God and His existence. The writer of that site, N.S. Palmer, an American mathematician who also writes for The Jerusalem Post reminds us that people in ancient times thought of God in anthropomorphic terms. When we look at many cultures and read about how they looked at the Divine Creator we always can see that they thought in terms of a “He” or a male Being that had a physical body. In most cultures we also can see that that Being Who gives life, opposite to those who He gives life for a certain time, was finite, more powerful than humans (but not omnipotent), and He lived in the universe but had not created it out of nothing:
“Both Christians and Jews, each in their own way, have even accepted God’s physical attributes without much care … Prephilosophical Jews and Christians accepted both psychic and somatic anthropomorphism as a root principle of their faith.”1{Muffs, Y. (2005), loc. 182}
Later people started getting different views.
Palmer writes
Starting as an anthropomorphic national god similar to other national gods of the Ancient Near East, He was reimagined as the Creator ex nihilo of the universe. He was infinite, transcendent, and utterly “other.” That had some philosophical merit, but it made our traditional beliefs as incomprehensible as the God to whom they referred, who had:
“… been reduced—or elevated, according to one’s own personal taste—to an impersonal principle: Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Good, Infinite, and so on … Philosophy has lost its radical doubt (God is still affirmed as a person), while myth has lost its fire (God is not much of a person).”{Muffs, Y. (2005), loc. 195}
Maimonides, Moses ben Maimon, medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher, preeminent astronomer and physician who became one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars of the Middle Ages.
Making God transcendent and incomprehensible makes belief that “God gave the Torah to Moses at Sinai” and other theistic beliefs into nonsense, because their subject is unknown and unknowable. According to Maimonides, the verb is equally unknowable:
“His essential attributes … must not be like the attributes of other beings … Similarly the terms ‘knowledge,’ ‘power,’ ‘will,’ and ‘life,’ as applied to Him, may He be exalted, and to all those possessing knowledge, power, will, and life, are purely equivocal, so that their meaning when they are predicated of Him is in no way like their meaning in other applications.” {Pines, S. (1963), p. 13}
Therefore Palmer finds that
we end up with “Blank blank the Torah to Moses at Sinai.” The belief no longer has any obvious logical meaning. {How Theism Has Meaning}
Beliefs about God and related concepts
Palmer thinks
One interpretation of belief in God is that reality does not depend on what we believe, wish, or want. Apart from a few events that we control, reality is shaped by a power beyond us. If we are monotheists, we think it’s a single power: God. Scientifically-minded atheists have a similar belief but without the theology: for them, the single power is physics. {God, Science, and Objective Reality}
When requiring answers for the Divine Being, having to proof It or He has or had a cause or no cause and/or that the world has a cause, being it The God. The (“cosmological”) argument for God’s existence may be an example:
1. Everything has a cause.
2. The world is a thing.
3. Therefore, the world has a cause.
But according Palmer this giving the problem
if God doesn’t have a cause, then it’s not true that everything has a cause. Instead of God, you could just as easily say that the universe itself doesn’t have a cause. And that ends the first-cause argument. {You Can’t Prove God — and It Doesn’t Matter}
Giving the world its existence to the cause God, does not add for Palmer.
Logic doesn’t support any addenda. The argument (1. Every A is B.; 2. X is an A.; 3. Therefore, X is B.) can prove that “X is B,” but it can’t also prove that “Oh, by the way, B is G” (i.e., the Biblical God). {You Can’t Prove God — and It Doesn’t Matter}
Palmer continues
any statement we make about God seems logically meaningless. It might refer to something — indeed, to something supremely important — but we literally don’t know what we’re talking about. We’re saying some words but we have no idea of what we’re saying. That’s not a proof, nor even an argument. {You Can’t Prove God — and It Doesn’t Matter}
According to us “The Proof that God exists” is one of the major facts where you could say there is the only Biblical Doctrine is given, something which we might not be able to cope or to understand or to explain, but should accept as a reality, namely that there is a Divine Universal Supreme Being Who is the Cause of everything and the Maker of all.
Palmer is convinced, like us, that the basic error in making arguments for God’s existence is much simpler than many philosophical thoughts we can find in many books. For him
It’s the assumption that logical arguments are the only way to prove things. They’re not.
He asks
Can you prove that the color red exists? Of course you can. You point to a red thing, and say “Look at that. It’s red.” If a person can see the color red, no other proof is necessary. If a person can’t see the color red, no other proof is reasonably possible. Pointing to things is called ostensive proof, as opposed to logical, discursive proof.
And what if some else finds that this what you point out is “green” or “blue”? And what makes you to define that colour you see or interpret to be “red” to be really “red”?
The only proof of God’s existence that’s really convincing is ostensive proof. Through prayer or meditation, we can try to open our minds to a reality beyond our ordinary experience. And most of us find something there, a feeling of transcendence. We don’t understand it and we can’t explain it. Theists call it God. Atheists call it natural law or the majesty of the universe. Each of us interprets it in terms of concepts and stories in which we already believe: the Bible, physics, or as we mathematicians sometimes say, “God is a mathematician.”
So you can’t prove God in a logical sense, simply because you can’t prove something you can’t define.
All you can really do is offer an ostensive argument: Open your mind and reach out to the transcendent. You’ll find something supremely good. Call it what you like. But call it. It will answer your call. {You Can’t Prove God — and It Doesn’t Matter}
Does God exist? 2 Does God exist? It’s an important question – perhaps the most important question. Yet there is a huge number of people in the world who regard it as an open question, or simply deny the possibility. Among them are some very
A joint effort of several authors who do find that nobody can keep standing at the side and that “Everyone" must care about what is going on in today’s world.
We are a bunch of people who do not mind that somebody has a totally different idea but is willing to share the ideas with others and to be Active and willing to let others understand how "today’s decisions will influence the future”. Therefore we would love to see many others to "Act today".
View all posts by Guestspeaker
9 thoughts on “Possible arguments and proofs about the existence of God #1”
makagutu is violating the truth by saying we would say “that the proof for God cannot be arrived at through logic” First of all we are bringing in the presented article what N.S. Palmer, an American mathematician who also writes for The Jerusalem Post writes about the proof for God.
You also seem to forget that it is what Palmer finds that “The belief no longer has any obvious logical meaning”.
A belief is not at all a proof of God. There are many beliefs even in no god.
People can use common sense to come to look at nature or creation and come to see the Hand behind all creation and as such to find proof for the existence of God. (Please read the series about the proof of God, to get a better understanding of what we say, what others say and what we believe)
Unmasking anti Jehovah sites and people 
makagutu is violating the truth by saying we would say “that the proof for God cannot be arrived at through logic” First of all we are bringing in the presented article what N.S. Palmer, an American mathematician who also writes for The Jerusalem Post writes about the proof for God.
You also seem to forget that it is what Palmer finds that “The belief no longer has any obvious logical meaning”.
A belief is not at all a proof of God. There are many beliefs even in no god.
People can use common sense to come to look at nature or creation and come to see the Hand behind all creation and as such to find proof for the existence of God. (Please read the series about the proof of God, to get a better understanding of what we say, what others say and what we believe)
LikeLike