Demanding proof of God

[eightandsand]

It does not seem that you read my post.

Why of course I read it.

 

[eightandsand]

“I think therefore I am.” The Atheist has absolute certainty of his own existence.

You can’t be serious.

But back to this notion of “absolute certainty” as it relates to the topic of this thread.

There is no absolute proof that the “external world” exists. Materialists have to take it on faith. Without this faith, science would be pointless. We do science because we first had faith in the existence of the external world.

So, when people say that there is no absolute proof for God’s existence, they mean empirical evidence (the existence of which has already been accepted on faith).

God’s nature, while not measurable with scientific instruments, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.

The decision to narrow the limits of reality (the existence of which is already accepted on faith) and truth to the limits of the scientific method, is a decision of the will not the intellect.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Christians also demand proof there is no God. It simply doesn’t exist. The atheist doesn’t even bother to look for it because he knows it doesn’t exist. Yet he is cocksure of a truth he cannot begin to prove. Go figure!

 

[User124]

Christians also demand proof there is no God. It simply doesn’t exist. The atheist doesn’t even bother to look for it because he knows it doesn’t exist. Yet he is cocksure of a truth he cannot begin to prove. Go figure!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_teapot

If someone claim the EXISTENCE of something, that person has to prove it, if you say you have a mobile phone in your hands, you have to prove it, otherwise I won’t believe you.

Can you physically disprove the billions of gods and characters in our history? I guess the answer is no, but you can scientifically, logically, and historically disprove the religious stories in holy books and particular religions, which is a logical debunk of a personal god.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

User

If someone claim the EXISTENCE of something, that person has to prove it, if you say you have a mobile phone in your hands, you have to prove it, otherwise I won’t believe you.

If you claim there is a phone in your hand, I cannot prove there is no phone in your hand just because I cannot see it.

Our God is visible only to those who open their eyes to see Him. If you throw away the organs of sight, you will not see Him, of course. That does not mean He is not there.

 

[vz71]

I guess the answer is no, but you can scientifically, logically, and historically disprove the religious stories in holy books and particular religions, which is a logical debunk of a personal god.

No, that only logically calls the interpretation of the story into question.

It does not debunk God.

 

[User124]

No, that only logically calls the interpretation of the story into question.

It does not debunk God.

It does not debunk god, it does debunk a religion and it’s god.

If you bring evidences to show that Islam is false, you’ll get to a conclusion that the Islamic character of that personal god Allah, the god of the Quran and Mohammed isn’t real.

User

If someone claim the EXISTENCE of something, that person has to prove it, if you say you have a mobile phone in your hands, you have to prove it, otherwise I won’t believe you.

If you claim there is a phone in your hand, I cannot prove there is no phone in your hand just because I cannot see it.

Our God is visible only to those who open their eyes to see Him. If you throw away the organs of sight, you will not see Him, of course. That does not mean He is not there.

You’re saying that I don’t believe because I don’t see a god? That’s untrue, it’s not even a reason, for none sees any god and many believe in them

 

[vz71]

It does not debunk god, it does debunk a religion and it’s god.

No again.

Calling a specific religion into question does not necessarily call God into question.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No again.

Calling a specific religion into question does not necessarily call God into question.

Note that he used a lower case ‘g’. He’s not specifically talking about Yahweh.

 

[vz71]

Note that he used a lower case ‘g’. He’s not specifically talking about Yahweh.

He may not be.
I am.

And the logic still applies.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

User

**You’re saying that I don’t believe because I don’t see a god? That’s untrue, it’s not even a reason, for none sees any god and many believe in them **

I clearly did not say “see God” in the literal sense. None can see God that way. What I meant to say is that we see God by experiencing God, not just with our minds but with our hearts. Anyone who wants to just “see God” with his mind has thrown away the eyes of his heart, which see God more clearly than the mind alone could ever “see” Him.

This is one reason I have given up trying to point out to atheists strictly cerebral “proofs” for God. It is nearly as impossible to offer such proofs as it is impossible to prove that Order can spring from Chaos.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

And as I have written in a previous thread:

This whole conflict between Christianity and Modern Science (Materialism) goes back to the ancient rival cosmological arguments of Epicurus and Aquinas. Everything depends on whether the things of nature are or are not eternal. If they are, Epicurus is right, and nature is self-contained, having no need of a divine source; if they are not, Aquinas is right, and nature is contingent, existing in a state of dependence on the source of its existence, a source outside of nature. The beauty of Aquinas’s argument from contigency, is that it is not based on revelation. It is not a scriptural argument. The Bible is never mentioned. It depends entirely on natural reason. And Aquinas’s argument actually has science on its side; indeed, since the advent of Big-Bang cosmology last century, it appears that the great weight of physical evidence points to the contingency of the universe. Sometimes it takes years for the scientific community to catch up with the knowledge of the Church. We’ve been saying the universe began in an instant from the beginning. Science figured this out and made it “orthodoxy” only rather recently (having been forced to abandon the most spectacularly wrong consensus in the history of science). We’ve said all people were equal, while science was toying with phrenology and eugenics. Eventually they got it and got up to speed.

Ironically, there is actually no actual direct evidence supporting the Epicurus’s “eternal atom” or the “grand unification theory” as it would be called today. In fact, none of the arguments in favor of Materialism is based on direct evidence, whereas all of the arguments in favor of an intelligent Designer are in fact based on empirical evidence that we can see and measure. When one sees design (the purposeful arrangement of parts) in Nature, it is only reasonable to conclude the presence of a Designer. Modern science (Materialism) was designed to exclude the Designer. Science, for the materialist, is not about truth-seeking. It is a about therapy, about achieving “ataraxia” (“freedom from disturbance” as Epicurus put it) from the fear of hell and the guilt of sin and the demands of the gods. Materialists are convinced a priori, by argument (rather than by evidence) that God does not exist. Unless blinded by devotion to materialism, a reasonable person could infer that the existence of a creative Intelligence as the cause of the fine-tuned universe is far less miraculous than the workings of Blind Chance.

Or is it possible that the non-believer might simply consider that a creator without seeming beginning is no less problematic than an [apparently] ordered creation bereft of creator?

Further, is it not certainly the case that a disordered material world would not have given rise to mankind and so, logically, the only material world with which man might ever be expected to be familiar is one in which he might survive? Is it necessarily the case that simply given that mankind has survived there must needs have been a mighty creator with that specific plan in mind?

If so, kindly consider how it is that the overwhelming majority of the universe is absolutely toxic to mankind and life in general: would such evidence not suggest that a creator god clearly did not have mankind’s welfare highly in mind when bringing about the 99.9999% of the material universe adverse to man’s health?

Ironically, there is nothing more likely to lead to the ultimate collapse of Materialism *than *the advance of science. Non-materialist arguments are viable alternatives as long as they explain the visible phenomena equally well or better. Thankfully, nature is independent of any scientific hypothesis defining scientific inquiry; Nature has the last say.

Indeed.

Now, as to the question of the identity of the Designer. The evidence is very strong that Christ was exactly who He claimed to be.

Why?

Even prominent atheists like British skeptic Albert Henry Ross, who originally set out to disprove the “myth” of the Resurrection, ended up being forced to admit that all the alternatives to the historical reality of the Resurrection (conspiracy, hoax, lies, hallucinations, myth, etc.) ended up being even less credible than the even they sought to discredit. The evidence exists.

Which evidence might that be? The hundreds of writings from among which the New Testament was seemingly cherry-picked, while setting aside the rest as heretical? Or the voluminous Old Testament writings which convey a sense of God as emotional, vengeful, and highly destructive in direct opposition to the concept of a god of loving, personal concern such as Jesus?

You are not FORCED to accept it.

Not now that the Inquisition has ended, certainly…

Even Richard Dawkins, in his debate with John Lennox at the Oxford Museum of Natural History, was forced to concede that the Gospel accounts are reliable historical accounts.

In which context?

Atheists (I prefer “Materialists” or “Anti-Theists”) have a very good case for the non-existence of a cosmic genie, but very weak one for the non-existence of the Creator.

This poster is not comfortable with being labeled either an “Anti-theist,” nor a “Materialist” per se. Is there room to provide for the label of “Agnostic Atheist” (as in, unknowing, non-theist)?

Most educated Anti-Theists that I have run into do in fact know that the one, true God exists. It is not so much that they deny His existence but rather they hate Him for their own painful, suffering existence (which is usually the result of their sinful lifestyles). Their materialism functions for them exactly has it has functioned since the time of Epicurus - as a form of therapy.

This is possible. Equally possible is that they dislike Him because He appears markedly savage in their estimations–perhaps resulting from a misunderstanding?

What of the “un” educated atheists? Might some of them have more common reasons for dismissing God: namely that they do not believe such an entity exists?

 

[PRmerger]

If so, kindly consider how it is that the overwhelming majority of the universe is absolutely toxic to mankind and life in general: would such evidence not suggest that a creator god clearly did not have mankind’s welfare highly in mind when bringing about the 99.9999% of the material universe adverse to man’s health?

I find this argument peculiar.

The fact is, per your statement, 0.0001% of the Universe is made just for mankind’s welfare, so the rest is irrelevant, no?

Not now that the Inquisition has ended, certainly…

That comment warrants this response:

elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

Not “now” that the Inquisition has ended? If your “now” represents centuries, then I suppose you may have a point.

This poster is not comfortable with being labeled either an “Anti-theist,” nor a “Materialist” per se. Is there room to provide for the label of “Agnostic Atheist” (as in, unknowing, non-theist)?

Certainly.

 

[catholictiger]

So, an atheist came up to me the other and demanded that I show the Atheist proof of God’s existence. I told him that the efforts of cause and effect were relevant to the circumstances that require the necessity of a being that would will something from nothing. Yet the atheist states,“This is not proof.”

I’m sure this doesn’t belong here, I’ll be content to know where it does so that I can post these sorts of questions there.

I simply didn’t know what more to say.

Can someone help me? I just don’t know what to say. And I would rather deal with this now before it causes me unnecessary apprehension.

-Karl

I would ask him a question what kinda of proof are you looking for?

more then likely he will ask you for a scientific proof.

you would say none exists.

he would probably say then God must exist. Then you must go about trying to prove that things exist even though science can’t explain them. I think trying to explain Love, Beauty, truth and the like could do that.

You may run into atheists who are scientific reductionist who believe that everything must be proved by science and if you can’t prove something with science it can’t exist. You may be dealing with someone you won’t be able to really convince them of God. The best thing to do is give them something to ponder over maybe in time they will change their mind. But again I would start by asking them what kinda of evidence would convince you God exists.

 

[User124]

No again.

Calling a specific religion into question does not necessarily call God into question.

Define God.

Religious people who claim that their religion is true have a lot to prove than the existence of a god/creator/designer.

Proving religion is harder than proving theism.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I find this argument peculiar.

The fact is, per your statement, 0.0001% of the Universe is made just for mankind’s welfare, so the rest is irrelevant, no?

As we both likely realize, the percentage is actually much lower. Nevertheless, does it not appear somewhat less likely that the universe appears made with mankind specifically in mind, but rather that mankind has found one small, insignificant mote upon which to dwell?

That comment warrants this response:

elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

Fair enough.

Not “now” that the Inquisition has ended? If your “now” represents centuries, then I suppose you may have a point.

Certainly.

Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

Nevertheless, does it not appear somewhat less likely that the universe appears made with mankind specifically in mind, but rather that mankind has found one small, insignificant mote upon which to dwell?

Perhaps you have forgotten that the human person, from the Catholic POV, is not made for this life but for eternal life?

So that may change your objection a bit, when you consider that from Eternity’s viewpoint, the Universe is indeed made for mankind. ALL of it.

Take this analogy: from the fetus’ POV, all of creation exists in his little haven of mommy’s womb. The rest of her body is irrelevant to him. Indeed, the rest of creation is irrelevant to him. It would appear to him that the rest of her body (and indeed, the entire rest of the universe) was not made specifically with him in mind. Just her uterus. And maybe the nutrients mommy takes in. (Let’s not make this a comment about embryology and human development, 'kay?)

But he was not made for pregnancy/gestation. He was made for this world. And once he enters it he will see how all of Mother Earth exists with him in mind.

Beautiful, no? :getholy:

 

[vz71]

Define God.

Given the claim that God is disproven by some kind of flawed logic, it would seem a definition has already been in play.
I am Roman Catholic. That should provide you with sufficient information to know how I define God.

Religious people who claim that their religion is true have a lot to prove than the existence of a god/creator/designer.

Proving religion is harder than proving theism.

Perhaps.
But disproving God is likewise a tricky endeavor.

Particularly for one that does not know exactly what evidence they would want.

 

[joe370]

Perhaps you have forgotten that the human person, from the Catholic POV, is not made for this life but for eternal life?

So that may change your objection a bit, when you consider that from Eternity’s viewpoint, the Universe is indeed made for mankind. ALL of it.

Take this analogy: from the fetus’ POV, all of creation exists in his little haven of mommy’s womb. The rest of her body is irrelevant to him. Indeed, the rest of creation is irrelevant to him. It would appear to him that the rest of her body (and indeed, the entire rest of the universe) was not made specifically with him in mind. Just her uterus. And maybe the nutrients mommy takes in. (Let’s not make this a comment about embryology and human development, 'kay?)

But he was not made for pregnancy/gestation. He was made for this world. And once he enters it he will see how all of Mother Earth exists with him in mind.

Beautiful, no? :getholy:

Great analogy.

 

[PRmerger]

Great analogy.

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/19363225309/when-im-with-my-friends-and-i-say-something-witty