The Teleological Proof for God

[Cythraul]

I suppose the theist would want to claim that the nature of God is such that he/she/it wasn't created. I take it that theists regard God as ontologically quite distinct from ordinary beings in that God supposedly is not dependent on anything else for his/ its existence. Kind of like the old philosophical notion of substance. I don't think there is anything conceptually incoherent about that. Indeed, for God to require something else for its existence would defeat the very notion of the God that theists want to posit, methinks. I don't know. Maybe I'm just rambling. It's late and I'm tired.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Theists say nothing created God, he always existed, and yet they use the argument that many complex things can only be explained by believing in a creator. Isn't this a blatent non sequitur argument?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Theists say nothing created God, he always existed, and yet they use the argument that many complex things can only be explained by believing in a creator. Isn't this a blatent non sequitur argument?

yes

 

[proglodite]

Well obviously the watch was assembled by elemantary particles that have existed since before the beginning of time, which slowly developed through an arduous process of trial-and-error into the ordered being that is now called 'watch', without any outside guidance, force or foresight.

Theists say nothing created God, he always existed, and yet they use the argument that many complex things can only be explained by believing in a creator. Isn't this a blatent non sequitur argument?

No. The universe is physical, and thus dependant on time; God is spiritual, and thus not so.

 

[Norsemaiden]

How did God come into existence? Do "spiritual" things exist? If so why doesn't their existence require an explanation?

The whole idea of proving God exists would be counter to the need to have FAITH. Faith means believing without conclusive proof, or even any need for proof at all.

 

[proglodite]

How did God come into existence? Do "spiritual" things exist? If so why doesn't their existence require an explanation?

The whole idea of proving God exists would be counter to the need to have FAITH. Faith means believing without conclusive proof, or even any need for proof at all.

Faith does not always mean 'Blind faith', you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, not because you have proof, but because it has done so countless times before. Yes, you have to believe in order to understand, as opposed to understanding in order to believe, but if time is taken from the equation, there is no 'before' (ie. what was before God?)

 

[Norsemaiden]

To what extent is it necessary to practice what Jesus says you should do if you are to go to Heaven? If you just repent at the last minute before you die (even though it is a calculated act) does that excuse not doing all the things you should have? Is it okay to be only a part Christian, who just enjoys the social life and pays little attention to the instructions from Christ? I would have thought it ought to be 100% attempting to do what the bible says, otherwise you are no more a Christian than Final_Product as an example, who thinks there are some good parts to it, but isn't a believer.

 

[proglodite]

To what extent is it necessary to practice what Jesus says you should do if you are to go to Heaven? If you just repent at the last minute before you die (even though it is a calculated act) does that excuse not doing all the things you should have? Is it okay to be only a part Christian, who just enjoys the social life and pays little attention to the instructions from Christ? I would have thought it ought to be 100% attempting to do what the bible says, otherwise you are no more a Christian than Final_Product as an example, who thinks there are some good parts to it, but isn't a believer.

Christianity is NOT a religion, in that the aim is not to follow the 'rules' (ie. the bible) but to love God with everything that you are. As a result, all the instruction for life that is in the bible is seen in your actions, not because you are trying to follow them, but because your love for God gives that direction to your life, and so these actions are a natural outcome of your love. If you were able to make God the #1 love of your life, over any other aspect of life, just before death, wouldn't it make sense to love God from the very start? If there is enough reason to love God over everything else, why put it off?
From this definition of 'Christian' I would suggest that there is no such thing as a part-Christian; but at the same time there is noone other than God who can judge whether or not an individual has their heart on God.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The bible is completely redundant then. You can do what you like as long as you "love god". Excuses excuses!!! And do the other Christians on the forum get out of the awkwardness of Christ's demands the same way too? It's like someone saying they are a Marxist because they like what they think Marx was like, but wouldn't need to agree with a single thing written in Das Kapital.

 

[proglodite]

The bible is an accurate guide. It is a physical representation of God's instruction/will, not the focus of Christianity. One's spritual love for God should be reflected in one's physical actions, and these actions should line up with what's in the good book. Trying to change one's actions to align with the bible (or any 'holy' text) is completely different, and is called religion. Without the bible, though, we would have no black-and-white measuring stick, if you will.

 

[angelofdeath9308]

I might also add that every cog and wheel, every piece in the watch, is designed for some end. The watch itself is designed for a reason. To say that the universe, or anything within the universe, is designed for a purpose, is mere human vanity. This is just something interesting I learned in my ethics class not too long ago. The heart pumps blood, but what reason is there to believe that it was designed for that very purpose, that it ought to pump blood. This also ties in with Hume's is/ought gap, that we can not derive what "is," (the heart pumps blood), from an "ought" (the heart is designed for that purpose). Like I said before, the watch is designed for a purpose, and there is no reason to believe that the universe was designed for a purpose, for in doing so, we would be deriving an ought from an is.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The bible is an accurate guide. It is a physical representation of God's instruction/will, not the focus of Christianity. One's spritual love for God should be reflected in one's physical actions, and these actions should line up with what's in the good book. Trying to change one's actions to align with the bible (or any 'holy' text) is completely different, and is called religion. Without the bible, though, we would have no black-and-white measuring stick, if you will.

So you are saying that your physical actions should line up with what is in the bible without actually trying to follow it. So it can tell you whether what you do ior have done is correct, but you should read it and then try to do it, is that what you mean? So if you find yourself lusting after some woman on TV or wherever and she is not your wife and then you just feel an urge to pluck out your eye (or cut off your hand if you have been stimulating yourself with it) then you are following Christ's instructions, so that is good. But if you read it in the bible first, and told yourself that you must mutilate yourself if you look at a woman that way, then that is getting too religious and is not the right way. Did I get that correct?

Matthew 6:4 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

 

[proglodite]

More or less, albeit with sarcasm re self-mutilation

 

[کوڈانشی]

and what if your love for ﷲ (allah = god) and/or jesus happens to coincide with zoroastrian sensibilities and rules? or islamic? mithraic?

 

[proglodite]

I don't pretend to have an extensive knowledge of other religions, but to my knowledge what makes Christianity unique is that through the resurrection, we are granted both God's grace and then consequently the Holy Spirit, and so we able to draw closer to God. This is because he forgives us unconditionally when we turn to him, without any need for other physical action.
This being said, I do not condemn any other religion, I merely present what I believe to be the truth.

Brad

 

[Demiurge]

I don't pretend to have an extensive knowledge of other religions, but to my knowledge what makes Christianity unique is that through the resurrection, we are granted both God's grace and then consequently the Holy Spirit, and so we able to draw closer to God.

Christianity can still be associated with what Hegel termed the "unhappy consciousness." The particular person is hopelessly cut off from the absolute. You're right that Christ is an attempt to close the gap, but Christ is a difference not in mere degree, but in type. Even by being the perfect Christian, one cannot become as holy as Christ. However, if you take a mystical philosophy like that of Plotinus, a person's capacity for divinity is not limited. Any differences are in degree only. Theoretically, you or I could realize our divinity to the same degree as the most divine person to ever walk the earth, as we are not different in kind.

 

[proglodite]

The issue is not the divinity of the individual, but the individual's divinity in God's eyes

 

[Demiurge]

The issue is not the divinity of the individual, but the individual's divinity in God's eyes

I think it's fair to say Christianity is unique insofar as it separates the individual from divinity to an extreme degree. Various religions/mystical traditions allow the particular person to realize divinity, whereas Christianity projects the capacity for divinity outside of the self, onto a higher, separate being. Now Christ is the reconciliation between the Absolute and the particular. However, Christ is unattainable. You cannot be "christ-like" because Christ is different in type(he is the son of god, you are not; it is his nature to be more connected to god than other humans). Christianity is a striving without the possibility for attainment. In short, I am disagreeing that Christianity is unique in that it allows the particular person to draw closer to God than other religions. The opposite is the case.

By the way, I am speaking of Christianity as if it were a monolith, but it's not. I realize that there are Christian mystics like Jacob Boehme and Meister Eckhart who are more in line with mystical philosophies of The One. It's interesting to note that if you read mystics from different tradititions, there is a great similarity between them.

 

[speed]

I think it's fair to say Christianity is unique insofar as it separates the individual from divinity to an extreme degree. Various religions/mystical traditions allow the particular person to realize divinity, whereas Christianity projects the capacity for divinity outside of the self, onto a higher, separate being. Now Christ is the reconciliation between the Absolute and the particular. However, Christ is unattainable. You cannot be "christ-like" because Christ is different in type(he is the son of god, you are not; it is his nature to be more connected to god than other humans). Christianity is a striving without the possibility for attainment. In short, I am disagreeing that Christianity is unique in that it allows the particular person to draw closer to God than other religions. The opposite is the case.

By the way, I am speaking of Christianity as if it were a monolith, but it's not. I realize that there are Christian mystics like Jacob Boehme and Meister Eckhart who are more in line with mystical philosophies of The One. It's interesting to note that if you read mystics from different tradititions, there is a great similarity between them.

In addition, there is the East-West (Rome vs. Constantinople or Catholic vs. Coptic/Orthodox) debate that caused the death and inquisition of untold thousand and even millions of sects, caused the schism etc. In the West, Christ was the son of God when on earth, and in the East, Christ was a man on earth, and became the son of God at his death and resurrection. This throws a different wrinkle into the equation, and is the reason I feel the Orthodox faith is far more spiritually and theologically valid.

 

[proglodite]

However, Christ is unattainable. You cannot be "christ-like" because Christ is different in type(he is the son of god, you are not; it is his nature to be more connected to god than other humans). Christianity is a striving without the possibility for attainment.

'Christ-like' as in 'like Christ when he was on earth', and merely a blameless human; and so this concept fits in with God's grace/the resurrection: when our sins are forgiven, in God's eyes we are like Christ.