I have found the greatest problem with most attempt to "prove" the existence of God is that the definition of "God" is not defined, and therefore, exceedingly problematic in proving. The anthropomorphized version of God is difficult to prove, as conceptually, the idea of it is ridiculous, therefore attempting to prove the ridiculous by way of reason is inherently flawed. How does one prove something by reason if it is not, at it's core, a reasonable concept?

Understand, I'm new to philosophy, I just still have questions about it after reading the philosophy of the scriptures.Now I got. Thank you for your reply.

You bring up some good points, but just because something appears to be ridiculous does not mean there is an existence of something or not. Defining God is extremely important for the arguments, yet, from a logical standpoint, both arguments are inherently flawed based on the 'no evidence' presumptions. We cannot conclude the certainty of God existing or not based on the fact that we don't have evidence for either as well as mere logic. For instance, I can logically prove out that turtles fly but that doesn't mean that they can or not. So, with these for and against God arguments, there is always a jump and there is always faith in either side...

To add to my first reply to your post, I think applying reason to the existence of God or not is also not as fruitful as it may initially seem. If we define God, in the eternal, all-knowing, supernatural, creative being that most do, he/she themself would then be contradictory to the universe in which we live in. It would also be contradictory to our understanding of space, time, creation, etc. So the presumptions required in a logical argument for or against God would still be somewhat weak in my opinion as it would not prove anything nor would it tackle or rule out some of the contradictory components of what God is.

I've just finished reading biblical philosophy. Is modern theology still trying to prove the existence of God by reason? — guanyun

Yes. Even theologians are uncomfortable with irrational "blind faith" as the only evidence for their deity of choice. So, eight centuries later, some are still refining Aquina's Five Ways of proving the existence of God by philosophical reasoning.

But a recent book took a novel approach to that perennial question. Instead of using ordinary verbal logic -- where definitions may vary -- to prove that belief in God is reasonable, Steven Unwin used the abstract logic of mathematical statistics, the science of probabilities. Yet he chose to use the Bayesian Probability technique, which was originally intended to gauge the level of confidence in uncertain scientific conclusions. In other words, it takes into account the Subjective aspect of Reasoning and of Confidence as expressed in percentages.

First though, Unwin tried to define the general concept of divinity as specifically as possible. His topic is the Bible God of Christianity, not necessarily the abstract Yahweh of Judaism, or the austere Allah of Islam. So, when faith is expressed in numbers, instead of words, it may give the impression of scientific accuracy and rational validity. Check it out, and see what you think. :smile:

The Probability of God : https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000Q9IVT2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

The Odds of God : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page60.html

Calculating God : Thus, all such scientistic theologies are compelling only to those who already believe. Religious faith depends on a host of social, psychological and emotional factors that have little or nothing to do with probabilities, evidence and logic. This is faith’s inescapable weakness. It is also, undeniably, its greatest power.
https://michaelshermer.com/sciam-columns/gods-number-is-up/

So-called modern theology would do well to return to the understandings of the founders of Christianity. They (the Patristic fathers) were pretty smart fellows and were emphatically not the founders of much modern fundamentalist nonsense and "modern" theology. Much modern "Christianity" is a display of profound ignorance and stupidity, which is a shame because it does no justice to ideas that have evolved over some four thousand years.

So-called modern theology would do well to return to the understandings of the founders of Christianity. They (the Patristic fathers) were pretty smart fellows and were emphatically not the founders of much modern fundamentalist nonsense and "modern" theology. — tim wood

I'm not so sure that the "Patristic Fathers" made more sense than later Theologians. But, since the "early founders" lived prior to the Imperial Roman Church, they only had one big problem to deal with : the kingdom didn't come with power & glory in the lifetimes of his hearers, as Jesus told his followers, in no uncertain terms. When their leader died, they were shocked by that unexpected turn-of-events. Nevertheless, the faithful waited expectantly for that great historical turn-around. But as time went by, with imperious Romans still in charge, no renewed Jewish kingdom, and after most early Christians had died, some began to doubt Jesus' bold words.

So Paul, in order to defend Jesus from implications of failed promises & prophecies, began a process of reinterpreting those messianic prophecies to relocate the kingdom in space & time --- to Heaven, and in some unspecified future. Paul and most other "Christian Fathers", never saw Jesus in the flesh. But their faith was strong, so they simply spiritualized the literal worldly concepts of "Messiah" and "Kingdom". Hence, for several centuries, they argued over various interpretations of the nature of both the Messiah and the Kingdom. This was a period of doctrinal chaos, with contradictory notions of Jesus' divinity, and of the long-prophesied Restoration of the Jewish Kingdom.

Finally, when Emperor Constantine chose Christianity as the official Imperial religion, he had to put his foot down, and standardize its official doctrine. That required eliminating competing heresies, and centralizing authority. The result was what we now call the Holy Roman (not Jewish) Catholic Church (not kingdom). And it was the beginning of officially sanctioned "modern" Theology. Unfortunately, the unity of doctrine and centrality of authority eventually began to fall-apart, and those early heresies have raised their heads again in our times, as "fundamentalist nonsense". :cool:


And he said to them, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."
___Mark 9:1

13. Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
___1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

Early Church heresies : https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-magazine/what-happened-to-the-beliefs-of-the-early-church

Patristic Fathers :
Patristics, is a branch of theological study of the most prominent writings of the pastors and theologians of the Church from the end of the Apostolic period until the beginning of the Medieval period. The time span of the Patristic period is generally considered to be about AD 100 (after the death of John, the last living apostle) until about AD 604 (when Gregory the Great died after serving in the the bishopric of Rome, in a life of ministry that tended to lock into place the basic elements of the Medieval Church, including the consolidation of ecclesiastical power in the church of Rome, and the ascendancy of the Roman bishop, who would come to be called the “pope”).
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/patristics.html