Demanding proof of God

[eightandsand]

Also, an excellent resource on this topic is the book: *Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God *by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker.

Here are some interesting snippets:

What would be the rational reaction to our seeing, in broad daylight, a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly wave at us?

a. Complete astonishment, and overwhelming belief that one had witnessed a miracle.
b. Complete astonishment, and nearly overwhelming belief that one had witnessed a
miracle coupled with the conviction that a thorough investigation should be made into
another probable cause.
c. Uttering, “That sure was lucky,” and going about one’s business.

If you response is “a,” you would be considered quite normal and rational, but perhaps a bit hasty. If your response is “b,” you would be quite normal and rational, but also skeptical enough to allow reason to further investigate. And “c”? You’d be Richard Dawkins - or at least it would seem so from his arguments…

…Dawkins believes that anything BUT a miracle is possible, and that leads him to believe that the impossible, no matter how absurd, is possible. The moon, over which the cow really could jump, truly might - just for a few moments, due to random molecular restructuring - be made of green cheese…In *The Blind Watchmaker *Dawkins states that “A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly suprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn’t behave like that.” However, he goes on to assure the reader, science would not judge this occurence as “utterly impossible,” but only “very improbable.”…This is a fundamental confusion that runs throughout Dawkins, the confusion of improbability with impossibility

…God’s existence is not a matter of probablility. Either He does exist or He doesn’t exist…No event that is more miraculous than the miralce that it seeks to discredit can be used as an explanation to deny that a miracle actually occurred…

When it comes to the science of life, Hahn and Wiker get even more interesting:

…The fact that the universe had a very definite beginning, as did the chemical elements, creates several difficulties on several different levels for anyone, including Dawkins, who wants to displace God with chance. To begin with, while God can create instantaneously or over any period of time He wishes, chance needs a long, long, long time to accomplish even the most meager results…Now, if the universe existed forever, well then, time’s not a problem. You’ve got more than enough time to spare. But, you haven’t got forever; you’ve only got 13.5 billion years. Actually, as it turns out, since our focus is on the possibility of random chemical combinations on Earth, then we’ve only got 4.5 billion years. Even more daunting, since the Earth wasn’t cool enough for living things until about 3.8 billion years ago, we’ve got even less time. Well, what actually happened? Against all odds, the simplest cell formed on our planet almost immediately upon our planet being cool enough to allow for the simplest biological life. If getting the right chemical combination to allow for the simplest cell by chance is anything like getting a perfect deal in bridge, we are (if we take Dawkins’ view of things) really, really, really lucky. It looks like somebody stacked the deck…

Hahn and Wiker make many more valuable points.

It is also interesting to note that Aquinas’s argument for contigency is not based on revelation. It is not a scriptural argument. The Bible is never mentioned. It depends entirely on natural reason. Ironically, there is nothing more likely to lead to the ultimate collapse of Materialism than the advance of science. That is why the intelligent design movement itself rose from within science, rather than as an external critic of science. Thankfully, Nature is independent of human opinion and has the last say.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Also, ask the atheist if he has proof of his own existence.

I like this argument. It’s nice and simple for us non-philosophy people! It probably won’t win the debate, but I think it can certainly halt an athiest’s attack in its tracks.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Science can’t prove nor disprove the existence of God. Science studies the natural world. God is supernatural. Asking for scientific proof of God, then declaring Him to be nonexistant when none is provided is like trying to listen to the radio with a hammer, then declaring that radio waves don’t exist because you couldn’t detect any.

Science is a great tool, as is a hammer (I fix everything with a hammer). But just as a hammer is the wrong tool for listening to the radio, science is the wrong tool for trying to prove God’s existence. It operates in an entirely different realm.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

My response:

Sorry I can’t do that. My God does not impose his will upon any of his creation. He allows us the choice to have a relationship with him. If there were to be undeniable proof of his existance then we would have no choice and the relationship would be forced upon us.

If someone chooses to have a relationship with him and that relationship grows and that is a wonderful thing for that individual.
Conversely if someone had the foundation of the relationship without being able to ever chose… Well it would be akin to constantly holding a gun to your head and demanding that we be friends.

Do you have a relationship with everyone that you have undeniable proof of? I don’t. There are many people I am certain exist that I don’t love, spend time with, obey, do work for, or even speak to. For instance, I bumped into a woman the other day. I am certain that she exists, but other than a quick, “Sorry,” I haven’t had a relationship with her.

How does certainty of a god’s existence negate a person’s free will?

 

[eightandsand]

You’re talking about Descartes’ philosophy. “Cogito ergo sum”, right?

Right.

But, you see, there is a problem. There is plenty of undeniable, cumulative proof pointing to the existence of God. But God does not FORCE anyone to accept it.

Modern science (materialism) was designed to exclude the Designer. Science, for the materialists, 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. Darwinism is in no way novel; it is a necessary and ancient part of the entire materialist creed, going straight back to Epicurus. Non-materialist arguments are viable alternatives as long as they explain the visible phenomena equally well or better. Materialism is an explanatory filter that eliminates a priori the possibility that the universe could be intelligently designed. Materialism is therapuetic, not scientific.

Also, most of history cannot be “proven” absolutely. From a historical standpoint, there is more “evidence” to support Christ’s Resurrection than there is for Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. If Jesus didn’t rise, then the apostles, who taught that he did, were either deceived or deceivers. Materialists could not escape this dilemma until they came up with a middle category, myth, which prominent 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 event they sought to discredit. Then you have the Shroud of Turin (contrary to what some say, it was not carbon dated to the middle ages; the carbon dating was contaminated and inaccurate).

 

[HelenRose]

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

You can not prove the existence of color to a blind person. If a blind person came to you and said prove to me the color of blue you could not do it. Even if you could explain the science behind colors, until he or she could see the color they would not believe or understand.

 

[Crescentinus]

And he does. For millions of Catholics around the world.

 

[bzkoss236]

Personally, I believe that God shows his existence every moment of my day. If we choose to ignore those signs, well, then we are like those in Plato’s cave, seeing shadows on the wall from a false light, thinking that it’s reality.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

I agree with you. The fact that we exist, I feel, is a testament to God’s existence, but people like to complicate things, and take things for granted, and therefore become blind to what is actually going on. I think a lot of people today, because they feel God doesn’t exist, that they could never attribute anything to Him, everything has an explanation other than God. They’ll come up with some random, complex, almost impossible notion of some kind, off the top of their heads, to explain something simple rather than attribute it as a work of God. Like Richard Dawkins saying that he could see Intelligent Design as a possibility if it were an alien life form that designed our genome, but not God. Where those aliens came from, who knows, but he might say from another alien species, but then the cycle continues for eternity and you run into the same issues as Mormons do with their infinite gods problem.

The fact that we exist at all, have conscious, reasoning thought, have the capacity to love and express that love are just a few of many signs that prove to me God’s existence. If you want to bring science into it, I could go deeper into why I feel even science proves there is a God. Heck, Catholic Answers Live had a 2 hour show back in the spring about proving God’s existence with physics. The proof is out there, people just need to stop being so closed-minded, otherwise, nothing will ever be enough proof for them.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Right.

But, you see, there is a problem. There is plenty of undeniable, cumulative proof pointing to the existence of God. But God does not FORCE anyone to accept it.

Modern science (materialism) was designed to exclude the Designer. Science, for the materialists, 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. Darwinism is in no way novel; it is a necessary and ancient part of the entire materialist creed, going straight back to Epicurus. Non-materialist arguments are viable alternatives as long as they explain the visible phenomena equally well or better. Materialism is an explanatory filter that eliminates a priori the possibility that the universe could be intelligently designed. Materialism is therapuetic, not scientific.

Also, most of history cannot be “proven” absolutely. From a historical standpoint, there is more “evidence” to support Christ’s Resurrection than there is for Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. If Jesus didn’t rise, then the apostles, who taught that he did, were either deceived or deceivers. Materialists could not escape this dilemma until they came up with a middle category, myth, which prominent 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 event they sought to discredit. Then you have the Shroud of Turin (contrary to what some say, it was not carbon dated to the middle ages; the carbon dating was contaminated and inaccurate).

Modern science must exclude God in its operation, if it is going to be effective. Scientists wouldn’t get very far if they just said “God did it” and left it at that every time they couldn’t figure out something. They have to assume that some natural explanation exists for everything and try to find it.

Now, if it gets to the point where they try to declare that there is no God (which many do), then they are being ridiculous because there’s no way they could measure or detect a supernatural being anyway.

 

[HelenRose]

Modern science must exclude God in its operation, if it is going to be effective. Scientists wouldn’t get very far if they just said “God did it” and left it at that every time they couldn’t figure out something. They have to assume that some natural explanation exists for everything and try to find it.

Now, if it gets to the point where they try to declare that there is no God (which many do), then they are being ridiculous because there’s no way they could measure or detect a supernatural being anyway.

I disagree. A scientist could very well ask the question. How did God do this or that? Believing that, as Einstein said, “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe.” and with the starting point that God loves His creation and wants us to search for His purposes, the scientific approach works just fine and doesn’t need to exclude a belief in Him.

 

[Bill_Martin]

I disagree. A scientist could very well ask the question. How did God do this or that? Believing that, as Einstein said, “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe.” and with the starting point that God loves His creation and wants us to search for His purposes, the scientific approach works just fine and doesn’t need to exclude a belief in Him.

That’s why I said “in its operation”. Unfortunately, many scientists take this idea and incorrectly extend it to belief in God in general.

 

[HelenRose]

That’s why I said “in its operation”. Unfortunately, many scientists take this idea and incorrectly extend it to belief in God in general.

Okay.

 

[thevalleyoflepe]

I’m not sure any of those answers that were given are sound.

When someone asks you a question like that, and if you were to answer it, you’re now playing in the arena of reason. What does reason have to do with God?

It seems to me, the best response, to someone who would ask such a question, if you had to give an answer, would be, flip the tables on them . . . ask them to give you evidence on nonexistence? If they believe in no God, unless their reasoning is flawed, it would stand to reason they believe in nonexistence after death . . .

. . . ask them to explain to you, how are they certain of nonexistence, and to give you that proof?

Going a step further in this equation, you could make the argument, we’re here right now, therefore we exist, --to think that existence somehow evolved from nonexistence seems a bigger stretch than believing in God. And in the very least, to think existence, after death, is going to be nonexistence, where’s the proof?

There’s no proof . . .

. . . and if they can’t give you proof, which they can’t, when all is said and done, it comes down to either believing the glass is half full or half empty . . . and the non believer is of that ilk who always believes the glass is half empty . . . your best bet would be to avoid such pessimistic people.

 

[eightandsand]

Modern science must exclude God in its operation, if it is going to be effective. Scientists wouldn’t get very far if they just said “God did it” and left it at that every time they couldn’t figure out something. They have to assume that some natural explanation exists for everything and try to find it.

Now, if it gets to the point where they try to declare that there is no God (which many do), then they are being ridiculous because there’s no way they could measure or detect a supernatural being anyway.

Science MUST follow the evidence, wherever it leads. Science MUST NOT exclude any empirical evidence pointing to God. Unfortunately, Modern Science (Materialism) has done just that. The ancient materialist, Epicurus, provided an* approach to the study of nature - a paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn called it - which purposely and systematically excluded *the divine from nature, not only in regard to the creation and design of nature, but also in regard to divine control of, and intervention in, nature. This approach was not discovered in nature; it was not read from nature. It was, instead, purposely imposed on nature as a filter to screen out the divine.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Science MUST follow the evidence, wherever it leads. Science MUST NOT exclude any empirical evidence pointing to God. Unfortunately, Modern Science (Materialism) has done just that. The ancient materialist, Epicurus, provided an* approach to the study of nature - a paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn called it - which purposely and systematically excluded *the divine from nature, not only in regard to the creation and design of nature, but also in regard to divine control of, and intervention in, nature. This approach was not discovered in nature; it was not read from nature. It was, instead, purposely imposed on nature as a filter to screen out the divine.

The problem is that the “empirical evidence” that points to God is usually a lack of observed evidence of anything other cause. If we can’t explain how the Earth was formed, as scientists could not do for a long time, then this would suggest that God made it. But should we stop there, or keep looking and maybe discover things about physics and space that we never knew before?

What inevitably occurs (and what I think you are referring to; correct me if I’m wrong) is that science tries to come up with its own dogma by saying that God can’t exist because we couldn’t find him with our microscope, radar, or telescope. This is where they do what you posted. They try to go back into history, using tools not made for the job, with the purpose of somehow “disproving” a being they have no ability to prove or disprove in the first place in order to remove the prospect of guilt, judgement, and accountability from impeding with their desire to do whatever they want in life.

 

[eightandsand]

The problem is that the “empirical evidence” that points to God is usually a lack of observed evidence of anything other cause. If we can’t explain how the Earth was formed, as scientists could not do for a long time, then this would suggest that God made it. But should we stop there, or keep looking and maybe discover things about physics and space that we never knew before?

What inevitably occurs (and what I think you are referring to; correct me if I’m wrong) is that science tries to come up with its own dogma by saying that God can’t exist because we couldn’t find him with our microscope, radar, or telescope. This is where they do what you posted. They try to go back into history, using tools not made for the job, with the purpose of somehow “disproving” a being they have no ability to prove or disprove in the first place in order to remove the prospect of guilt, judgement, and accountability from impeding with their desire to do whatever they want in life.

The evidence for intelligent design is visible and strong, whether it concerns the fine tuning of the physical constants or the complexity of the fundamental structures of biological life.

The evidence for Blind Chance and non-directed evolution is very weak.

The public square is gaurded by those who are trained to believe that there are only two stark alternatives: materialist science (which defines the very meaning of rationality) or immaterialist irrationalism. That there are rational arguments, based on empirical data, for the existence of an intelligent cause is simply ruled out by declaring that if the argument is not materialist, then it must be irrational (or, more kindly, “theological”). Materialism (modern science) is based on undemonstrated arguments (from Epicurus’s “eternal atom” to the modern “multiverse theory”), the circular reinforcement of which ultimately serves to release adherents of materialism form the disturbing thought that a divine Intelligence is behind it all.

It is worth noting that the persistent myth of the antagonism between Science and Christianity can be traced, more recently, to John William Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science, published in 1874.

 

[slotty]

Do you have a relationship with everyone that you have undeniable proof of? I don’t. There are many people I am certain exist that I don’t love, spend time with, obey, do work for, or even speak to. For instance, I bumped into a woman the other day. I am certain that she exists, but other than a quick, “Sorry,” I haven’t had a relationship with her.

How does certainty of a god’s existence negate a person’s free will?

relationship: a connection, association, or involvement.

So any involvement, connection or association of any kind would constitute a relationship.

So if there is undeniable proof of God’s existence it would force a relationship rather than allow that relationship to be chosen freely.

 

[robwar]

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

Ask him how does he know there is wind? he can’t see it, doesn’t know where it is coming from or going. Ask him how he can touch wind. See what he says and tell him that just like God, we can’t see the wind but we know when it is blowing.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

relationship: a connection, association, or involvement.

So any involvement, connection or association of any kind would constitute a relationship.

So if there is undeniable proof of God’s existence it would force a relationship rather than allow that relationship to be chosen freely.

I have freedom when it comes to having a relationship with King Arthur, but I don’t have freedom when it comes to having a relationship with my with my wife?

God is more concerned that he should not force an association on me, than that I should give informed consent as to what kind of relationship I want to have with Him?

 

[CMatt25]

Atheists don’t want knowledge, or truth. They want certainty. Well, nobody can have that

Which is why I will never understand why Catholics keep saying they know they have the revealed Truth. You are right. No one can have certainty. And if you can’t prove God with certainty, you certainly can’t prove the Catholic faith. It might be more precise if Catholics said they believe by faith they know the Truth.