I commented on a discussion on one of Don's recent posts, but wanted to make this its own thread as well.  The post is long but hopefully is worth while to read.

As for Hawkeye's request for proof that God exists, I will throw in my two cents.  First off what I'm going to argue for is an inductive proof; meaning given these lines of evidence it is more likely than not that God exists, not a deductive proof like one might find in geometry or calculus.  So from the outset Hawkeye may disagree with me since he is trying to set up impossible ground rules it seems.  But if he / others are willing to think logically, built on evidence, then inductive proofs can more than lay a solid groundwork for a faith that is very reasonable.  In other words, I believe based on scientific and historical evidence that it makes more sense to be a Christian than an atheist, agnostic, scientific materialist, or new ager.
  First off, there is a beginning to the universe.  We know from experience that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  The universe began to exist.  And therefore the universe must have a cause.  However we also know through physics that the moment of the big bang was the beginning of space and time.  There was no time before the beginning of the universe, in our sense of the word time.  So our universe was literally began by something that is beyond space and time.  We also know that this thing chose to have this event happen.  We know roughly this was a choice because we could have not had a universe at all.  So what this shows is that something caused the universe to come into existence, that seemed to be operating with a choice, that was outside our physical causality, space, and time.  Making a choice implies that this is a person; a personality.  This personality is immaterial, incredibly (all?) powerful, and eternal, as in not bound by space and time.  Does this mean it was the Christian God?  Not at this point no; it could have been a pantheon of Gods at this point that caused these events; or another version of God altogether.
  Secondly we know that the laws of the universe, and the constants that were set up in these laws, were fine tuned for the possibility of life.  One example would be the constant that is in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  I believe the example that Stephen Hawking gives is that if the constant was one millionth stronger (a very small amount), than the universe would have collapsed back in on itself after the big bang, and if it was something like one millionth weaker (again, a very small amount lesser than what it is), then we would have a universe where stars and planets wouldn't form; a universe of Hydrogen and Helium gas.  This is one example among hundreds however; there are many, many of these examples of constants being set at just the right value to allow for life, and the idea is called the anthropic principle.  The more we learn scientifically the more we learn that our universe has been fine tuned for life.  So then, as we update our conclusion, we know that something exists that is immaterial, eternal, incredibly if not all powerful, astoundingly intelligent, and a creator in the sense of setting up the laws of the universe in a sensible way that allows for the possibility of life.  This doesn't prove God deductively in the way that Hawkeye is looking for (deductive) proof, but it does start to give powerful indications of what caused our physical, material universe.
  Third I would argue that morality exists.  There are actions that are clearly right or clearly wrong.  It is wrong to torture babies for fun.  So the question arises, where does this morality come from?  Or more correctly, what is the basis of morality?  I would argue that the basis of morality lies in the existence of something that is absolutely (not relatively) good; a moral code or expectation of behavior.  A counter argument here is that our morality is governed by societies that we live in.  The problem then is that societal morality degenerates quickly into moral relativism.  One's society cannot be better than one other's society if moral relativism exists; they are simply competing claims to who is right.  In other words, I could say that in the society that I live in, it is fine to torture babies for fun, and you would have no justification to argue against that.  However, if we are being honest with ourselves, we know that torturing babies is simply wrong.  One could argue that this is because of the society that I grew up in; I would argue that society does play a role, but torturing babies for fun is objectively, absolutely wrong.  If there is something that is absolutely wrong, then there must be a line to judge that problem against; a right type of expected behavior to judge the wrongness against.  This implies that there is a goodness to the universe that is inherent in the universe as well.  I would say that this suggests, but doesn't prove, that this being that is immaterial, incredibly powerful and intelligent, outside of time, and able to cause physical reality changes, also has put into place a code of conduct for the universe.  Yes, this code is usually not black or white, but sometimes it is black or white.  This implies a law giving component of whoever this being or beings are that are immaterial, incredibly powerful, outside of space and time, and creators.
  Fourth I would argue that life and moral choices have meaning.  Make no mistake; if God and the afterlife don't exist, than life is meaningless.  Worse yet, it is a sick joke for most of humanity that is suffering.  The only way that life has any meaning at all is if it matters how we treat others.  If it doesn't matter at all, then there is no value to anything; there is nothing of lasting permanence, there are no real achievements and suffering is not meaningful or redemptive; it simply is sick.  There are about 3000 kids who die from malaria every day.  These kids just have short lives of suffering with no setting of things right; no chance at betterment, no justice, and their lives have absolutely no meaning.
  Lastly the life and example of Jesus is the example of the character of this creator that is incredibly powerful, intelligent, outside of space and time but able to affect space and time, and a creator who is also a lawgiver.  It's hard to dismiss Jesus; he is a polarizing figure.  As C.S. Lewis pointed out, Jesus claimed to be God, and that gives us three logical responses.  Option one is Jesus was not God and knew it; he was a liar.  Option two is Jesus was not God and was confused about that fact; in that case he was insane.  And the last logical option is that Jesus is who he said he was; God incarnate.  Those really are our only 3 logical options.   Just to say that Jesus was an 'ascended master', or to call him a prophet like the Muslims do, or just make him out to be a moral teacher is logically ridiculous; because he also, along with leading the most incredible exemplary human life, he also claimed to be God incarnate, taking on human weaknesses, and perfectly demonstrating how we should live our lives, and saving humanity in the process as well.  He is not simply a nice guy, or someone who can fit into other systems of thought; he is either the Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  Nice guy is not an option.  So from this we can update our view of God, based on science and history:  God is immaterial and eternal (but can influence and cause events in our physical universe), is incredibly intelligent (if not all knowing), incredibly powerful (if not all powerful), a creator, a lawgiver, and gave a perfect example of his character through his human life here on earth, the life of Jesus.  Much more about God's character is revealed through the life of Jesus.  This is a proof of God's existence, and proof that Christianity is more logical, and makes more sense, than any other option; although it is not a deductive proof.  So if one is willing to read with an open mind then they may take something from this; but if you are looking to argue than maybe not.  Many people react negatively towards Christianity or Jesus; they claim to be tolerant towards everything but are very intolerant towards Christianity.  I'm open to semi constructive debate or criticism.  By the way if you want to hear someone who is much better than explaining these things than I am, download any of William Lane Craig's debates in mp3 format.  He has debated popular figures as well as academics; including Richard Hitchens as an example.

Pratekya:

Regarding morality, I believe a key is the golden rule, due unto others as you would want done to yourself.  The other day I read about a man who had been raping a 13 month year old girl for several months (which means she was younger when he started doing so).  Any moral relatavistic argument that would condone such behavior is absolute BS, and I don't care what country, planet, galaxy or universe somebody comes from.

If you don't treat another with love and respect, then it's wrong, regardless of what a supposed channeler such as Neale Donald Walsch claims (if you believe what God supposedly told him, it doesn't matter what we do).

I believe it is more likely that near death experiencers receive words from a divine being during their NDEs than it is likely that Walsch actually conversed with God. Near death experiencers often state that it is very important how we live our lives while here, and it is important to live according to love. They state that during their live reviews they experience how they caused others to suffer. They don't tend to share a bunch of moral relativism.

If we aren't able to see that there are modes of being that are preferable and positive and modes of being that aren't, how are we going to be able to recognize and appreciate that which is positive?

Regarding Jesus being God because this is what the Bible says, in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke he speaks as if God is a being other than himself. Some people would say that he states that he is God in the gospel of John, but there are numerous times within John when he speaks as if God is a being other than himself. There is also the matter of how accurately the Gospel of John represents what he said. Video recorders and such didn't exist when Jesus was here in this world.

Whatever the case, I figure that an incredibly wise being such as God or Christ understand why some people aren't able to conclude that a few verses in John prove that Jesus is God. I believe that people who are afraid to conclude differently are more likely to say that the gospel of John shows that Jesus is God, rather than people who don't allow fear to determine how they discriminate things.

Divine will is really important to me. I don't want to do something that is opposite divine will. I figure that if I pretended that I believe Jesus is God because I'm afraid not to do so, I don't serve divine will in such way. I believe that we serve divine will the best when we allow ourselves to see truth as it is, even when doing so requires us to question concepts that many people are afraid to question.

If Jesus is a magnificient soul rather than God himself, perhaps it is a bit much to expect him to play the role of God. How can he share love with other souls completely if people deify him in a way that is inaccurate?

Regarding how this universe is set up in just the right manner that enables it to function, I have a few things to add, but I have to find the article before I can do so (I don't remember the precise details).

A late P.S.

Quite obviously I didn't consider the matter of who Jesus is according to the limiting parameters set by C.S. Lewis.

The Golden Rule period. God or no God, Jesus or no Jesus, the Golden Rule rocks and helps us lower our spiritual entropy. I mean I guess that's important though it has occurred to me that if we ever wind up with 0 entropy will be S O L. Of course if one accepts that the soul is eternal then entropy reduction becomes a matter of choice. The word "God" really annoys me. It so lacks imagination.

In my experience, being a person who has denied the existence of a greater power and adapted strictly to science and reasoning for half of his life, the only true way to find evidence of God is to find it yourself. One of the biggest problems with people (especially atheists) is that they want to sit back and let other people do the work for them and offer them the proof. This is so feeble to me. If you want to understand what God is and experience it without what you were taught from a book, then get off your arse and find the truth. It is in ignorance and only ignorance which defeats the truth. The entire point is that the spirit lives within us and it is within ourselves we will find the answer. If you want to find God, then start looking. If you don't, then don't even bother with the subject at all. If I can find spirituality with all that I've been through, I believe anyone can. You don't even have to believe strictly in what a certain religion says. Just know and understand that there is a great power and presence in the universe and you only exist because it exists.

Kathy's link gets right to it. Jung said it just as John Lennon stated it too. You just know. And when you do you don't need anyone else's explanation for how God behaves or what God is called or whether Jesus was more than you are. Understanding leads to knowing and knowing is king. Words are not the answer. The words of another will ultimately lead to fear if they go unchecked because we all have our own path. I can't follow your map from where I am standing so to speak.

Usetawaz –
Jesus did basically say that he was the example, and we are expected to follow his lead, including being the catalysts for good so that miracles can work through us.  The difference is that we are not creating the miraculous; we are not God as a new ager might say.  We become adopted sons and daughters of God in a way.

Recoverer –
  I largely agree with most of what you have posted.  Sequentially I want to address some of the things that you have written.

Quote:
  Jesus said that "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. (Luke 12:47-49)

I’d say that it seems like you and Jesus are largely in agreement while approaching this from a different tack.  Someone who is born into an abusive family, grows up without love, and dies young – much less will be expected of that person than someone who had been born into a loving family and had a lot handed to them.

Quote:
  I would argue that I’m trying to learn honestly about the truth here, not really letting fear determine how I discriminate things.  Honest people disagree with the exact semantics of whether Jesus was God’s Son, God’s representative, or God incarnate.  I fall into the God incarnate / Son camp, although this creates a problem that you address later.  The example that C.S. Lewis gives (yes, C.S. Lewis) is a fair one I think.  Jesus clearly has the power to forgive sins (in the synoptic gospels no less), and his Jewish audience clearly has it right; who has the power to forgive sins but God alone?  Note C.S. Lewis’ example here is from the book of Matthew:

Quote:


Quote:
  I totally agree.  I believe that God values honesty, and clearly sees and judges our inner selves which often times is at odds with our outer selves that we portray to others.  The afterlife will not be that way; there will simply be our inner selves interacting, with no lying or two faced activities allowed.

Quote:
  I suppose you are being consistent here.  If Jesus is not God’s Son, or God incarnate, or another function of God (an avatar of God if you will), then it is too much to expect him to play the role of God.

Your listing of quotes that get at Jesus’ identity is impressive.  I think the value that you place in viewing Jesus as not God helps to emphasize his humanity, which has its benefits; it makes him seem more like an example we can follow rather than ‘God putting on a man suit’ so to speak.  It validates Jesus’ weaknesses and sufferings, just like ours.  And again it points to the things that a human being can achieve when they are wholly in tune with what God wants, which I believe Jesus intended; he wanted Peter to get out of the boat and walk on water over to him for instance.  Jesus wants us to live extraordinary lives, living in God’s love.  I do also think Jesus was an incarnation of God, but I think that honestly our differences have very little net effect on the outcomes of how people should live their lives.

Quote:
  I think you are right on here.  We may agree, or not, on nuances, but at the end of the day we will not be judged on our fine dissection of theological ideas but how we treat others.

Starcraft:
My arguments are neither of the two that you posted; good job on not only not reading what I’ve written but completely mischaracterizing me into an idiot.  You are fighting a straw man argument here; I did not propose what you’ve lumped me into, and my arguments are based on science and history largely.  Yes, one of my 5 arguments does depend on the bible as a historical document, but taken as a whole it provides a solid inductive argument, as opposed to the joke of an example you provided to show my idiocy.  Maybe I shouldn’t even respond to your post.

Quote:
Scroll up, and read, before you post on the net and make yourself look like the idiot you are trying to portray others as.

Lights:
I’m at work right now on break and unfortunately cannot hear the dialogue on this computer because it has no audio device.

Cricket:
As for your first point, I actually make the same argument through my points – that the creator need not be one, need not be the Christian notion of God even, just incredibly powerful, outside of space / time, a creator, a lawgiver, eternal in being, but having a personality – an ability to choose.  I included the idea that the conclusion need not even include monotheism at that point.  However taken together with the 5th argument; the argument from the historical recorded life of Jesus, and a lot of those attributes become fleshed out in the character of God as evidenced in the life of Jesus.  I suppose if you want to reject the bible or the historical recorded life of Jesus as being valid, then you are simply left with something that is incredibly powerful, outside of space / time, a creator, a lawgiver, eternal in being, but having a personality – an ability to choose – and you can flesh that out with whatever details you find to be more to your liking.  The trouble is though that you may be trying to make God in your own image; looking for something more palatable.  If that doesn’t correspond to reality then you may be simply creating a substitute to not deal with the aspects of Jesus’ life and claims on our lives that you don’t like.

I teach high school Physics, Biology, and Chemistry, and fully believe in evolution.  I believe the Grand Canyon was made by the erosion of the water running through sedimentary rocks.  I also believe that evolution is a mechanism that the creator of the universe has put in place for creation and for the renewal of creation.  Science and belief need not be at odds; you probably know it’s called a false dichotomy (i.e. either you’re a believer in science or a believer in some form of faith / spiritual system).

Beau:
I agree that experiencing God is incredibly more important than talking about God.  However, I would argue that ideas matter, and having false ideas about God and spirituality can impede one’s spiritual progress.

Quote:
  Maybe.  Not all religious or spiritual ideas cause fear.  These arguments for the existence of God have given me not fear, but more peace in my life.  I know I can talk with rational, educated people and I have not only an experiential faith but one that is reasonable; in fact in my opinion, my faith is more reasonable than not.  In the face of worldviews and ideas that attack and demean, one can disengage, as it seems like you are doing, or one can combat these ideas head on.  Because if you tend to start to become more exposed to say, Scientific Materialism for instance, and have no way of refuting it, your faith can start to wither and die as a result.  Maybe saying something like “words are not the answer” might work for someone who totally wants to disengage, but for people who want to search for truth logically as well as experientially it wont work.

Two thumbs up.