Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

existence of god

Expand Messages
  • Bob Lane
    The philosopher Anthony Flew once challenged an audience of philosophers at a symposium on the philosophy of religion by asking this basic question: [quote]
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 2 7:02 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      The philosopher Anthony Flew once challenged an audience of
      philosophers at a symposium on the philosophy of religion by asking
      this basic question:


      [quote] Now it often seems to people who are not religious as if
      there was no conceivable event or series of events the occurrence of
      which would be admitted by sophisticated religious people to be a
      sufficient reason for conceding "there wasn't a God after all"
      or "God does not really love us then." Someone tells us that God
      loves us as a father loves his children. We are reassured. But then
      we see a child dying of inoperable cancer of the throat. His earthly
      father is driven frantic in his efforts to help, but his Heavenly
      Father reveals no obvious sign of concern. Some qualification is
      made — God's love is "not merely human love" or it is "an inscrutable
      love," perhaps — and we realize that such suffering are quite
      compatible with the truth of the assertion that "God loves us as a
      father (but of course…)." We are reassured again. But then perhaps we
      ask: what is this assurance of God's (appropriately qualified) love
      worth, what is this apparent guarantee really a guarantee against?
      Just what would have to happen not merely (morally and wrongly) to
      tempt but also (logically and rightly) to entitle us to say "God does
      not love us" or even "God does not exist"? I therefore put to the
      succeeding symposiasts the simple central questions, "What would have
      to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the
      love of, or the existence of, God?" [end quote]

      Bob Lane
    • Eduard Alf
      hi Bob,
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 2 7:09 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        hi Bob,

        << I therefore put to the succeeding symposiasts
        the simple central questions, "What would have to
        occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a
        disproof of the love of, or the existence of,
        God?" [end quote]>>

        That is a neat way of putting it. I suppose
        Anthony Flew could also challenge symposiasts to
        give conclusive proof that two-headed aliens dont
        live on planet X.

        why shouldnt we not put it in the reverse? "What
        would have to occur or to have occurred to
        constitute for you a proof of the love of, or the
        existence of, God?" I think it is about time
        that the religious [with respect to a conventional
        "god"] amongst us, took on some of the work to
        prove things. Instead of simply standing back
        with the proclamation that "god" exists, and then
        putting the onus upon others to prove the
        negative.

        what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

        eduard

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bob Lane [mailto:rdlane@...]
        Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 10:02 AM
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [existlist] existence of god

        The philosopher Anthony Flew once challenged an
        audience of
        philosophers at a symposium on the philosophy of
        religion by asking
        this basic question:

        [quote] Now it often seems to people who are not
        religious as if
        there was no conceivable event or series of events
        the occurrence of
        which would be admitted by sophisticated religious
        people to be a
        sufficient reason for conceding "there wasn't a
        God after all"
        or "God does not really love us then." Someone
        tells us that God
        loves us as a father loves his children. We are
        reassured. But then
        we see a child dying of inoperable cancer of the
        throat. His earthly
        father is driven frantic in his efforts to help,
        but his Heavenly
        Father reveals no obvious sign of concern. Some
        qualification is
        made — God's love is "not merely human love" or it
        is "an inscrutable
        love," perhaps — and we realize that such
        suffering are quite
        compatible with the truth of the assertion that
        "God loves us as a
        father (but of course…)." We are reassured again.
        But then perhaps we
        ask: what is this assurance of God's
        (appropriately qualified) love
        worth, what is this apparent guarantee really a
        guarantee against?
        Just what would have to happen not merely (morally
        and wrongly) to
        tempt but also (logically and rightly) to entitle
        us to say "God does
        not love us" or even "God does not exist"? I
        therefore put to the
        succeeding symposiasts the simple central
        questions, "What would have
        to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you
        a disproof of the
        love of, or the existence of, God?" [end quote]

        Bob Lane
      • yeoman
        Mark,
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 21, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark,

          <<< The universes are within God as the Ground and Source
          of all being. Hence Christian existentialism has an answer
          for that which was before the singularity ... the Ground and
          Source of the singularity ... but the answer is subjective
          and not open to objective analysis.>>>

          ---> Why?? What is it about the ground and source of all
          being is not open to objective questioning?? Perhaps
          because it does not exist at all. I have asked that
          question before and still have not gotten an answer. How do
          we know that this isnt merely a figment of your
          imagination??

          eduard
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.