Are there any new proofs for God?

[coolduude]

Or do you think they’re all taken?

I am kinda trying to think of my own proof, but whenever I do I think that all the proofs are ‘taken’, or already thought of

I am beginning to believe all the proofs for God are taken; what do you guys think?

Coolduude

 

[laursaurus]

I started reading, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” by Norm Geisler. I think he’s an Evangelical, not Catholic. But the book seems to have a thorough and persuasive explanation of the classic, extra-Biblical arguments for the existence of God.

I also subscribe to the “Reasonable Faith” podcast with William Lane Craig and Kevin Harris and “Catholic Answers Live” podcast via iTunes.

Have you watched any debates on YouTube? Just type something like "debate does God exist"in the search box. Dinesh d’Souza, William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath are 3 I’ve watched and enjoyed.
Ironically, many are actually posted by atheists.

I’m rather new to the topic, so sorry if I have nothing new to offer you.

Hopefully, others will reply with something fresh.

 

[Call_Me_V]

Or do you think they’re all taken?

I am kinda trying to think of my own proof, but whenever I do I think that all the proofs are ‘taken’, or already thought of

I am beginning to believe all the proofs for God are taken; what do you guys think?

Coolduude

Not necessarily. If you keep up with philosophy of religion, arguments, on both sides, are constantly being created or revised, resharpened for new use. Now, though I don’t at all mean any offense to you, any new arguments or new versions of arguments are likely going to be invented by professional philosophers, not laymen, but you never know. At the very least, going to the trouble to try and invent a new argument, and then trying to anticipate all objections against it, will at least be an excellent thinking exercise, and a fun one, in my opinion

Just my two cents,
V

P.S. An earlier poster recommended some Christian apologists, and while I can’t say that I recommend Dinesh D’souza very highly, William Lane Craig is without a doubt the finest Christian apologist of the past half century, he’s a good read/watch if the fact that he’s Protestant isn’t too much of a turn of to you.

 

[laursaurus]

P.S. An earlier poster recommended some Christian apologists, and while I can’t say that I recommend Dinesh D’souza very highly, William Lane Craig is without a doubt the finest Christian apologist of the past half century, he’s a good read/watch if the fact that he’s Protestant isn’t too much of a turn of to you.

D’Sousa was the first debater I watched on YouTube, so his argument seemed fresh and persuasive. Also, he’s Catholic. I had never encountered an argument for God or Christianity that didn’t rely on the Bible. The debate was with Peter Singer, so maybe that had something to do with it.

I agree with your opinion of William Lane Craig. One episode of Reasonable Faith discussed Catholicism. He explained that he viewed our faith similar to any other Christian denomination. There are just the subtle differences in theology that kept him from calling himself a Catholic. But he emphasized this was not significantly any different from another Protestant denomination.

I really liked Greg Koukle’s “Stand to Reason” until he dedicated an entire episode to criticizing the Catholic Faith. Apparently, he was raised Catholic, but never heard the Gospel speak to him until he attended an Evangelical church. His guest was the author of a book about his walk with Christ as a former Catholic. It broke my heart, because his show does a phenomenonal job of apologetics in layman’s terms.
I’m too shy to call his show, but I wished I could tell him my experience, which is the opposite. I didn’t bother to read the Bible before I became Catholic because the literal interpretation of the OT is a mistake, IMO. Then I received a New American Standard Bible when I began RCIA classes. The thorough context and scholarly approach opened up the beauty of Scripture for me. Becoming Catholic was undoubtedly my “born-again” Christian experience.
When atheism is claiming so many souls, why would he shoot down the original Christian church on what seemed like an emotional basis?
Anyway, sorry to go off topic.
For me, apologetics and the mental exercise of examining and explaining my faith, has been beneficial. It always strengthens and confirms it to me.

 

[Call_Me_V]

D’Sousa was the first debater I watched on YouTube, so his argument seemed fresh and persuasive. Also, he’s Catholic. I had never encountered an argument for God or Christianity that didn’t rely on the Bible. The debate was with Peter Singer, so maybe that had something to do with it.

Peter Singer, the ultra pro-abortion nut job? Yeah, I can understand why D’souza would look good in that context. I have mostly personal issues with D’souza. I don’t think he “walks the walk” when it comes to his supposed Catholic faith. He describes himself as a "non-practicing’ Catholic, I don’t know if that means he’s a cafeteria Catholic or if he just can’t be bothered to go to Mass every week, I don’t know. I’ve seen him be rude, sexist, bigoted, and just plain dishonest. Also, he started out writing bout politics, not religion, and some of the things he did during that time are, in my opinion, slimy. He’s a Republican first, and a Catholic second, he’ll play up his Catholicity to sell books, but he was quick to throw the Catholic bishops in America under the bus in an article he wrote when they dared disagree with his precious Republican Party. He just doesn’t seem very… Christlike. Craig, on the other hand, does. When combined with the fact that Craig’s arguments are way better than D’souza’s, I can’t recommend Dinesh. But the OP is obviously free to check him out if he so chooses.

P.S. If you’d like, here’s the contrast between how Luke Muelhauser, my favorite non-Christian, views the two:

William Lane Craig
Dinesh D’souza

So, back on topic, the OP is not going to find much in the way of new proofs for God from D’souza… Craig, on the other hand, is working on new ones all the time (I know he just added two more to his collection, one of them was a variation of the ontological argument, I believe, I can’t remember the other). So if you want to invent a new proof for God, you better work fast, otherwise they will all be taken

For me, apologetics and the mental exercise of examining and explaining my faith, has been beneficial. It always strengthens and confirms it to me.

I agree. Be careful though, studying Christian apologetics vs. non-Christians was what caused me to lose my faith… but I’m sure you’re more up to the challenge then I was.

V

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Or do you think they’re all taken?

I am kinda trying to think of my own proof, but whenever I do I think that all the proofs are ‘taken’, or already thought of

I am beginning to believe all the proofs for God are taken; what do you guys think?

Coolduude

All arguments for Gods objective existence, that are not an attempt to prove a particular religion, are based on the qeustion of why something rather than nothing, and why something that is goal directed and reasonable?

All the proofs that proceed from these questions tend to be variations of each other because they all deal with trying to find an efficient or sufficient cause for some particular effect or group of effects, and then identifying that cause with God. There is only so much diversity in argument that can be achieved with such a concept.

The best argument for Gods existence is based upon the recognition that there is a fundamental distinction or difference between esse and essence. However; it is the most difficult to understand.

In my opinion, theistic philosophers have enough on their plate trying to defend arguments that have been around for centuries, let alone make new arguments.
I think you should be more concerned with taking classical arguments and modernizing them in a manner that is understandable to the present generation and also honestly takes in to account the discoveries of science, instead of brushing them aside as if they have no consequence. Also, a lot of books i have read by theists are rather dull and very technical. We need more creativity. The truth alone isn’t enough.

“call me v” I like your signature. The battle of the self is the truest war - the most honest.

 

[Andrew_Lorimer]

If a ‘proof for God’ then ipso facto…

G_d however…

 

[CatholicOf94]

Among them:

The reason you can still pull your next breath
The fact that if God stopped thinking about you for ONE MESSILY SECOND the entire universe would fall out of motion
The fact that God sent his only son into the world so that we might ALL be saved–> see, John 3:16
The fact that we even have a bible to prove it.
The fact that you came out of a small sperm cell and God knitted you in your mothers womb
The fact that The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The fact that The human brain…simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The fact that The eye…can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages – simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain – the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
The fact that We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

There. Breathes did I miss anything else?

 

[Call_Me_V]

Among them:

The reason you can still pull your next breath
The fact that if God stopped thinking about you for ONE MESSILY SECOND the entire universe would fall out of motion
The fact that God sent his only son into the world so that we might ALL be saved–> see, John 3:16
The fact that we even have a bible to prove it.
The fact that you came out of a small sperm cell and God knitted you in your mothers womb
The fact that The Earth’s size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The fact that The human brain…simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
The human brain processes more than a million messages a second Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people.

The fact that The eye…can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages – simultaneously. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain – the start of living organisms from nonliving matter.
The fact that We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

There. Breathes did I miss anything else?

Though I don’t want to derail this thread, if you start a new thread on one or more of those arguments I’d be happy to show why I don’t think that they work.

V

 

[AnAtheist]

All arguments for Gods objective existence, that are not an attempt to prove a particular religion, are based on the qeustion of why something rather than nothing, and why something that is goal directed and reasonable?

Yes and they all do not tell us anything about “God” except that they provide a pseudo-answer to that question. Basically they all say, there must be some kind of reason, we have no clue what it is but we call it “God”.
That doesn’t make any particular faith true, you still have to believe additional assumptions on the nature of this reason.
So even the good arguments for the objective existence of this reason beg further questions. Like “ok, and why should I become a Muslim now?” For they work for any religion that postulate such a reason.

 

[Thing]

If a ‘proof for God’ then ipso facto…

G_d however…

I like Blakes artwork, but I don’t know his poetry, are the ‘bear the beams of love’ the wooden beams of the cross He carried, cause your picture seems to have a beam of light, or lightening, in it.

 

[Andrew_Lorimer]

Thank you for your interest. I have posted a public message. To view the message left click my name above, and select “View Public Profile”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes and they all do not tell us anything about “God” except that they provide a pseudo-answer to that question. Basically they all say, there must be some kind of reason, we have no clue what it is but we call it “God”.
That doesn’t make any particular faith true, you still have to believe additional assumptions on the nature of this reason.
So even the good arguments for the objective existence of this reason beg further questions. Like “ok, and why should I become a Muslim now?” For they work for any religion that postulate such a reason.

You are welcome to your opinion; but i have to disagree.

A full understanding of Aquinas’s metaphysics exposes many of the important attributes that are relevant to the monotheistic conception of God such as having a perfect creative will. The God of Islam and Judaism is the same God of Christianity. We all believe in the same God, which would be evident to you if you read the scriptures of each faith. But the three religions disagree about what God has done in history or rather they disagree about the nature of Jesus. Obviously, metaphysics can only take us so far; but at the very least, those who labor in understanding will find that metaphysics reveals a reality that is consistent with our understanding of God. The rest is trying to find out which of the theologies is consistent with Gods nature, or which of the 3 religions is more consistent with idea of God; or whether some revelation such as the nature of Jesus is supported by biblical history. One would require reason and a study of history and scripture. Reason can aid us in determining a reasonable theology, but ultimately it is a matter of faith. But faith along with a metaphysical proof of a supreme intelligent being equals a reasonable faith. It doesn’t have to be a blind leap in to darkness.

We will always find an excuse to disbelieve something we don’t really want to believe, no matter how reasonable its conception.

 

[AnAtheist]

Obviously, metaphysics can only take us so far; but at the very least, those who labor in understanding will find that metaphysics reveals a reality that is consistent with our understanding of God. The rest is trying to find out which of the theologies is consistent with Gods nature, or which of the 3 religions is more consistent with idea of God;

Actually that is not limited to those three religions. Any religion or ideology that proclaims a metaphysical reason for the existence of the universe could be “nearer” to that reason. There is no reason to a priori assume there is only one god, it could have been many, or it could have been a completely unpersonal reason. You still have to make a leap of faith.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Any religion or ideology that proclaims a metaphysical reason for the existence of the universe could be “nearer” to that reason. There is no reason to a priori assume there is only one god, it could have been many, or it could have been a completely unpersonal reason.

That’s assuming that other metaphysical accounts (If you call them metaphysical) are logically consistent; such as their being many Gods or some kind of non-personal force. In your opinion, or rather in so far as your particular ability to understand something is concerned, you cannot see any reason to think otherwise. But as far as i can see, that has no objective bearing on reality or other peoples abilities and experiences. If you honestly cannot see any good reason to believe in God, than God will not judge you for being an atheist. But you have to be honest with your self as an existing person.

 

[AnAtheist]

In your opinion, or rather in so far as your particular ability to understand something is concerned, you cannot see any reason to think otherwise. But as far as i can see, that has no objective bearing on reality or other peoples abilities and experiences.

Quite true. Applies vice versa too. (Btw, objective bearings on reality are evaluated by scientific experiments.)

 

[Eric0802]

There is no reason to a priori assume there is only one god, it could have been many

Who ‘assumes’ there is only one god ‘a priori’?

Aquinas’s arguments, for example, lead to pure act. Now, if we apply the identity of indiscernibles to the concept of pure act, we immediately see that there can, as a matter of logic, only be one such being (since if we posit two, they would possess the same properties; but if two beings possess the same properties, we’re not dealing with two beings, but one being).

or it could have been a completely unpersonal reason. You still have to make a leap of faith.

Faith (properly understood) is certainly involved, but there are reasons to think that the first cause many arguments lead us to is a personal being. For example, take a conceptual analysis of the “cause of the universe” that the Kalam cosmological argument concludes exists: if such a cause were merely an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of our universe, then, since the first cause must be eternal (if it accounts for time, it cannot be in time), its effect – the universe – would be eternal. But the universe is not eternal, so the first cause cannot be impersonal. It must have chosen to bring about our universe; this is the only way to make sense of the conjunction of an eternal cause with a temporally finite effect.

 

[AnAtheist]

Who ‘assumes’ there is only one god ‘a priori’?

Everybody who jumps from this ominous reason to “God”.

Aquinas’s arguments, for example, lead to pure act. Now, if we apply the identity of indiscernibles to the concept of pure act, we immediately see that there can, as a matter of logic, only be one such being (since if we posit two, they would possess the same properties; but if two beings possess the same properties, we’re not dealing with two beings, but one being).

Ah, yes, but that is mere human logic. The gods are above human logic, they have created it anyway. For gods all you stated is possible. (Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?)