For me, God is the name for that which is holy, the mystery in which we live, and move and have our being. The idea of a proof for God's existence is absurd. God is not a thing that exists separate and apart for all that exists. Process theologians, empirical theologians,
panentheists don't do proofs for the existence of God, rather they describe the works of God, the experience of God.
Nevertheless people do try to argue for God's existence. This invites the atheists to refute the arguments. Since God is close and personal for me, I do not "get" atheists.
But I found this atheism to be interesting to ponder. It makes me appreciate atheists just a bit.
Overcoming colonialism through faith and action.
I agree with the way you conceive of God, Clyde.
Maybe that's why I find the ontological argument more persuasive than the others.
I tend to waver between agnosticism and atheism. Sometimes I think I agree with Miguel de Unamuno, who wrote that, while he didn't believe in a God, he didn't understand anyone who didn't want to believe in a God.
But I can understand people who don't believe in a God.
I'm the same way. When I was agnostic I contemplated the God question from both sides, but now that I'm panentheist the whole argument just seems superfluous.
I just enjoyed the piece. Of course, I had to stop at 125 and get back to work . . .
The 300 proofs demonstrate that their methodology is defective, not that God exists. I would rather reason from Euler's formula myself. The fact that it is true that the base of natural logs
e^ipi = -1 ought to convince anyone.
LinguistFriend