Can the existence of God be demonstrated

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
For the Christian, a God who is not all powerful, all knowing, all loving and all merciful is a philosophical contradiction. To be clear, what is your definition of God? The atheist may not be able to disprove an impersonal First Cause, but he will say that he has evidence that this First Cause is not the Christian God because of the existence of evil.
Click to expand...
The Chruch teaches Dogmatically that we can know, strictly through reason, that a personal God exists. 🙂

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
The Chruch teaches Dogmatically that we can know, strictly through reason, that a personal God exists. 🙂

Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Correct. And the Catholic Church teaches that God must be personal, all knowing, all loving. all powerful, and all merciful. So God cannot be the cause of evil, nor can God be malevolent, as has been suggested.
 
Tomdstone said:
Correct. And the Catholic Church teaches that God must be personal, all knowing, all loving. all powerful, and all merciful. So God cannot be the cause of evil, nor can God be malevolent, as has been suggested.
Click to expand...
God cannot be malevolent in the sense of wishing evil to befall us. That he allows evil to befall us is self evident. Add “all just” to your list of divine traits, and you get a partial insight to why God allows evil to befall us. Also add free will to the mix and you get another reason why evil is allowed even when God does not wish it to befall us.

Oh yes, God could intervene and force us to perform only good works and never evil works, but what would be the point? Automatons we are not.

I’ve always been a little puzzled by the complaint of some unbelievers that God allows us the freedom to choose between good and evil, while at the same time complaining that God acts like a tin horn Dictator.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
The Chruch teaches Dogmatically that we can know, strictly through reason, that a personal God exists. 🙂

Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Unfortunately, no atheist will. We “can know” but only if we open our minds and our hearts to reason, intuition, and inspiration.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
God cannot be malevolent in the sense of wishing evil to befall us. That he allows evil to befall us is self evident. Add “all just” to your list of divine traits, and you get a partial insight to why God allows evil to befall us. Also add free will to the mix and you get another reason why evil is allowed even when God does not wish it to befall us.

Oh yes, God could intervene and force us to perform only good works and never evil works, but what would be the point? Automatons we are not.

I’ve always been a little puzzled by the complaint of some unbelievers that God allows us the freedom to choose between good and evil, while at the same time complaining that God acts like a tin horn Dictator.
Click to expand...
In the case at point with the widowed Puerto Rican mother killed by a crazed drug addict, would it be possible for God to allow the addict to have his free will and attempt to kill the poor lady, but at the last minute to deflect the arm of the attacker, thereby sparing the life of this heroic mother of 4 children who was holding down 3 low paying jobs? The free will of the attacker would be intact, and the mother’s life would be spared.
 
Tomdstone said:
In the case at point with the widowed Puerto Rican mother killed by a crazed drug addict, would it be possible for God to allow the addict to have his free will and attempt to kill the poor lady, but at the last minute to deflect the arm of the attacker, thereby sparing the life of this heroic mother of 4 children who was holding down 3 low paying jobs? The free will of the attacker would be intact, and the mother’s life would be spared.
Click to expand...
What you are really asking is why God should not intervene in every such case of unjustified and merciless killing. If God did this, the whole human race would constantly be protected by God from the consequences of sin, in which case horrific evils of any kind would never be allowed by God to happen. Well, obviously this is not the will of God, or it would by now be transparently clear that it is God’s will.

Does this turn God into a monster? That seems to be your interpretation, or the conclusion you would like us to draw, so that we might be tempted to stop worshiping such a God. So what is the alternative you offer? That you offer us no God whatever, or that you suggest we worship the Devil instead? In the former case life itself becomes purposeless, and there is no mercy anywhere to found because there is no God to administer it. In the latter case you may rest assured that Satan has us in his sights, and that his aim is not to administer mercy, but rather the most hideous suffering possible, such as that wreaked by the drug addict on the heroic mother.

The heroic mother will get her well deserved mercy, in the next life if not in this one. The crazed drug addict will get his well deserved justice, in the next life if not in this one. According to the atheist, neither can be assured of getting either.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
What you are really asking is why God should not intervene in every such case of unjustified and merciless killing. If God did this, the whole human race would constantly be protected by God from the consequences of sin, in which case horrific evils of any kind would never be allowed by God to happen. Well, obviously this is not the will of God, or it would by now be transparently clear that it is God’s will.

Does this turn God into a monster? That seems to be your interpretation, or the conclusion you would like us to draw, so that we might be tempted to stop worshiping such a God. So what is the alternative you offer? That you offer us no God whatever, or that you suggest we worship the Devil instead? In the former case life itself becomes purposeless, and there is no mercy anywhere to found because there is no God to administer it. In the latter case you may rest assured that Satan has us in his sights, and that his aim is not to administer mercy, but rather the most hideous suffering possible, such as that wreaked by the drug addict on the heroic mother.

The heroic mother will get her well deserved mercy, in the next life if not in this one. The crazed drug addict will get his well deserved justice, in the next life if not in this one. According to the atheist, neither can be assured of getting either.
Click to expand...
You have misstated my position. I was responding to a question raised earlier:
Charlemagne_III said:
Can you demonstrate that God does not exist?

In your mind, is it possible or impossible that God should exist?
Click to expand...
I responded that we sometimes see the argument from the atheist that the Christian God does not exist because of evil.
 
Tom

In your mind, is it possible or impossible that God should exist?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Tom

In your mind, is it possible or impossible that God should exist?
Click to expand...
I already said that the argument from causality is pretty strong. Where did the first tiny particle that set off the BB come from? It looks to me like it had to be created somehow. Although the atheist might say that it was uncaused. One thing that puzzles me somewhat is the fact that Catholic theology teaches that God is all powerful and all knowing. Jesus is God, yet He says that He did not know the day or the hour. If God is all knowing, and Jesus is God, how come He did not know the day or the hour. Also in Genesis God asks Adam: “Adam where are you?” Why would God ask that question if He was all-knowing? Also in Genesis 3:8-12 God asks Adam: “Have you eaten the fruit I commanded you not to eat?” If God is all-knowing, wouldn’t He know whether or not Adam had eaten the fruit? Also in Genesis 18:20 "20The LORD also said, “How great is the disapproval of Sodom and Gomorrah! Their sin is so very serious! 21I’m going down to see whether they’ve acted according to the protests that have reached me. If not, I wish to know.” If God is all knowing, why would He need to go down to see how they acted? Wouldn’t He know already? Also in Zephaniah 1:12, the Lord God says: “And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and will visit upon the men that are settled on their lees: that say in their hearts: The Lord will not do good, nor will he do evil.” Since God is all present and all knowing, why would He need a lantern to search Jerusalem? The question came to mind as whether or not perhaps there might be a limitation somehow on the power of God, similar to a limitation to what can be true logically. For example, God cannot create a square circle, He cannot create a stone that He cannot lift, - things like that. Otherwise, it seems difficult to understand the existence of evil.
 
Tomdstone said:
I already said that the argument from causality is pretty strong. Where did the first tiny particle that set off the BB come from? It looks to me like it had to be created somehow. Although the atheist might say that it was uncaused. One thing that puzzles me somewhat is the fact that Catholic theology teaches that God is all powerful and all knowing. Jesus is God, yet He says that He did not know the day or the hour. If God is all knowing, and Jesus is God, how come He did not know the day or the hour. Also in Genesis God asks Adam: “Adam where are you?” Why would God ask that question if He was all-knowing? Also in Genesis 3:8-12 God asks Adam: “Have you eaten the fruit I commanded you not to eat?” If God is all-knowing, wouldn’t He know whether or not Adam had eaten the fruit? Also in Genesis 18:20 "20The LORD also said, “How great is the disapproval of Sodom and Gomorrah! Their sin is so very serious! 21I’m going down to see whether they’ve acted according to the protests that have reached me. If not, I wish to know.” If God is all knowing, why would He need to go down to see how they acted? Wouldn’t He know already? Also in Zephaniah 1:12, the Lord God says: “And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with lamps, and will visit upon the men that are settled on their lees: that say in their hearts: The Lord will not do good, nor will he do evil.” Since God is all present and all knowing, why would He need a lantern to search Jerusalem? The question came to mind as whether or not perhaps there might be a limitation somehow on the power of God, similar to a limitation to what can be true logically. For example, God cannot create a square circle, He cannot create a stone that He cannot lift, - things like that. Otherwise, it seems difficult to understand the existence of evil.
Click to expand...
So you believe it is possible there is a God, but if so, not the Christian God?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Can you demonstrate that God does not exist?

In your mind, is it possible or impossible that God should exist?
Click to expand...
It is not necessary to disprove a possibility to disbelieve the actual claim, that’s not how logic works.
The burden of proof is on you to support the claim that YOU are making.

But to answer the 2nd question, is it possible that their could be a creator deity? Sure.
Possible but there’s still no evidence so it would be a hypothesis at best.

The Abrahamic God on the other hand if you go by scripture is inherently self-contradictory and therefore is far less likely if not impossible compared to either a deistic god or a polytheistic pantheon.
 
Winterwolf00 said:
It is not necessary to disprove a possibility to disbelieve the actual claim, that’s not how logic works.
The burden of proof is on you to support the claim that YOU are making.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid you don’t understand how logic works.

If I say there is a three legged chair in my office I might be expected to prove it by producing the three-legged chair (or photos of the chair).

If you say there is no three-legged chair in my office, you would be expected to provide the evidence (taking photos of my entire office, for example).

You cannot take photos of a non-existent God, so you can’t prove God is non-existent.

You could theoretically take photos of the entire universe and not find God in any of them.

But that would not be proof there is no God, because God is not by definition a material object to be photographed.

God has created us in such a way that we can sense God’s presence by stretching our logic, our imagination, and our intuition. We cannot sense God’s non-presence, because non-presence by definition cannot be sensed.

All the best minds in human history have sensed the presence of God by one definition or another. Atheism is the refusal, for one reason or another, to sense what the best minds have sensed.

Give me your list of the best minds in human history who were atheists, and I will give you my list.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I’m afraid you don’t understand how logic works.

If I say there is a three legged chair in my office I might be expected to prove it by producing the three-legged chair (or photos of the chair).

If you say there is no three-legged chair in my office, you would be expected to provide the evidence (taking photos of my entire office, for example).

You cannot take photos of a non-existent God, so you can’t prove God is non-existent.

You could theoretically take photos of the entire universe and not find God in any of them.

But that would not be proof there is no God, because God is not by definition a material object to be photographed.

God has created us in such a way that we can sense God’s presence by stretching our logic, our imagination, and our intuition. We cannot sense God’s non-presence, because non-presence by definition cannot be sensed.

All the best minds in human history have sensed the presence of God by one definition or another. Atheism is the refusal, for one reason or another, to sense what the best minds have sensed.

Give me your list of the best minds in human history who were atheists, and I will give you my list.
Click to expand...
You clearly don’t understand how burden of proof works, or you do and are trying to reverse it because you know you can’t meet it.
Skepticism is the default response to any claim made.

And saying 'Such and such believed this so it’s true" is a non-argument.
It’s actually called Argument From Authority which is a fallacy.

Also you apparently don’t know what atheism is, which I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised by at this point.
 
Winterwolf00 said:
The Abrahamic God on the other hand if you go by scripture is inherently self-contradictory and therefore is far less likely if not impossible compared to either a deistic god or a polytheistic pantheon.
Click to expand...
A deistic god is inherently contradictory, because there is a contradiction in creating a universe and then abandoning your creation. What’s the point? The Abrahamic God does not abandon his creation. The polytheistic gods (certainly by the record of virtually all polytheistic religions) certainly contradicted each other and could barely tolerate each other’s existence.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
A deistic god is inherently contradictory, because there is a contradiction in creating a universe and then abandoning your creation. What’s the point? The Abrahamic God does not abandon his creation. The polytheistic gods (certainly by the record of virtually all polytheistic religions) certainly contradicted each other and could barely tolerate each other’s existence.
Click to expand...
Why does abandoning a creation contradict creating it?
Neither the Deistic God nor the Polytheistic gods have to deal with the problem of evil because it is not assumed that they are all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good all at the same time.
They do not contradict their own existence, or at least they don’t nearly as much as the Abrahamic god does.
 
Winterwolf00 said:
You clearly don’t understand how burden of proof works, or you do and are trying to reverse it because you know you can’t meet it.
Skepticism is the default response to any claim made.

And saying 'Such and such believed this so it’s true" is a non-argument.
It’s actually called Argument From Authority which is a fallacy.

Also you apparently don’t know what atheism is, which I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised by at this point.
Click to expand...
You discuss by refusing to answer. You know nothing about logic. Argument from authority is not a fallacy if the authority is reliable. When you rely on the authority of your dentist to tell you you have a mouth disease, is that a fallacy? He is certainly a better authority than you are.

You can’t come up with a list of the best human minds who were atheists, so you dismiss the argument as a fallacy.

Might as well dismiss all dentists from ever looking into your mouth. 😃
 
Winterwolf00 said:
Why does abandoning a creation contradict creating it?
Neither the Deistic God nor the Polytheistic gods have to deal with the problem of evil because it is not assumed that they are all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good all at the same time.
They do not contradict their own existence, or at least they don’t nearly as much as the Abrahamic god does.
Click to expand...
Abandoning a creation means you had no idea what to do with what you created. Then why
create it in the first place?

You apparently have never read Greek or Roman mythology and the constant wars between the gods.

How is the Abrahamic God at war with himself?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Abandoning a creation means you had no idea what to do with what you created. Then why
create it in the first place?

You apparently have never read Greek or Roman mythology and the constant wars between the gods.

How is the Abrahamic God at war with himself?
Click to expand...
Ugh face-palm, Do you even know what self-contradiction means?
Clearly not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top