Evidence for the existence of God

[Nth]

Parokki said:
OP's copypasta is really devious. It's convincing enough for people who want to believe it, but at the same time too long for people who know better to tear it up. Definitely too long for me to try debunking first thing in the morning before breakfast. =P


My favorite instance of trying to apply logic to religion was a monk in 11th or 12th century Europe, who used the ancient Greek arts of logic and reason to prove without a shred of doubt that God indeed existed. Apparently he was pretty good as far as medieval thinkers go.

However, the time wasn't quite ready for him, and he was accused of heresy because "only the Bible may be used to justify Bible!" A century earlier he might've been in more serious trouble, but managed to get out of it by renouncing his heresies and burning his books.

 I believe that the person you are referring to is Origen Adamantius.

And his theories on the existence of God were not what got him in trouble with the church it was because he believed that trinity was more of a heirarchy instead of a unity of three overlapping entities.

He believed that God The Father was Creation and this the essence of the universe that brought forth life
He believe that God The Son was the Theos or knowledge of God manifest. The truth that lives but lower than the Father.
He also believed that God the Spirit was the essence which drives the universe and this keeps the whole thing going.

He did not think they were parallel with each other but instead were divided in descending order of Father, Son, Spirit. This did not jive well with the church and thus they thought it was heresy and claimed that He and all of his teachings were Anathema. To be honest I do not think that his philisophical ideas were heretical in nature it was just that they don't jive with the churches creeds. However, many of the Gnostic churches recognize him as "St. Origen" and keep many of his teachings.

Also, his ideas on the existence of God are pretty radical and quite logical if you ask me. He is known as the Grandfather of Christian Philosophy and many of his ideas are pretty good. However, it is his teachings of the Logos that got him a bunch of trouble. It is complicated but just read the entry and you'll see what I mean.

 

All in all, I think that we will never be able to figure out as limited human beings how the whole thing started. I find that it is more logical to believe that we were constructed than to believe that something accidently came from nothing and through chaotic chance (the statistics to figure out how the human body was formed is staggering) and voila! here we are.

 

Anyways, I've given you more wood for the fire. Discuss!