Demanding proof of God

[da_nolo]

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:

1. (1)do you determine what is proof or (2) does the universe determine what to express which may be considered proof?

in other words, for all things of reality. is it either: (2) things exist and we discover them as we look in which we describe to being ‘evidence’ due to its relation to an equation at question OR (1) we designed the definition therefore consider under scrutiny what may or may not be ‘evidence’ based on our own ideal (opinion).

answer is (1) then person agrees to reality being based on opinion.
answer is (2) person must acknowledge possibility that ‘evidence’ is not determined by a person but by what occurs in which case, the person must look for ‘evidence’ as much as asking for it. where as neglect of it would be illogical.

or is the above just too confusing?
sorry, my mind was moving faster than what I could type and messed me up a bit too. ha ha.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well you could certainly say it is God’s fault for not letting himself be known. If God exists, he obviously has the ability to prove it in an undeniable fashion.

Well, that isn’t the way he works. He gives us signs of his existence in nature, he also came in person ( the history of his unfolding plan of salvation as found in the Scriptures, which are historical facts open to all), and he works miracles even today, he has given us the example of the Saints, he has given us the wisdom of men like Augustine and Aquinas. He expects us to reflect on all this or what works for us to come to a knowledge of his existence and what he expects as a response. In other words, he expects us to take the hints, he isn’t going to hit us over the head with anything, he wants us to be free to either accept him or reject him. It is a test you see. How worthy are we? If we are honest, we will see the signs and come to the correct conclusions. Far too many people today think we are in a kind of game. No it is not a game, eternity is in the balance.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In addition, watch this

youtube.com/watch?v=cJrMFv6QoX0

It gets awesome at 1:10, very much relates with what you are dealing with.

Pretty good!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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).

Excellet. Some really good responses so far.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

I think the proper answer is that science deals with facts of nature and attempts to discover the mathematical laws governing the operations and relationships of nature. And when a scientist makes a judgement from these facts and relationships about the existence or non-existence of God he has stepped into the realm of Metaphysics. This is beyond his expertise. Now he could also be a Philosopher ( i.e. Fr. William A. Wallace O.P.) but then he must base his judgements on Metaphysical assumptions and not on scientific facts.

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.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

The claim of certainty is not exclusive to the Catholic faith. The certainty of the Christian faith is the revelation of God’s plan for man in the Scriptures. Faith in God and who he is and what his plan is and how his Son is the culmination of that plan is an absolute certainty (i.e. it is an infallible truth). The Catholic faith goes a couple of steps further. Traditional teaching came before the written Scriptures. So Tradition is the first source of truth for Catholics. Tradition teaches that Christ handed his church over to Peter as its head and the Apostles who were to help Peter spread the Goodnews throughout the world.The Magisterium ( teaching office or function of the Church through the Pope, or the Pope with the Bishops, decended from Peter and the Apostles) hands on the true and absolutely certain faith to the people of the world. It was the Magisterium of the Church ( the Pope and the Bishops sitting in council) that declared the Canon of the Scriptures. So the Catholic Church has three sources of infallible truth - Tradition, the Scriptures, and the Magisterium which rules over the first two. The Magisterium is the final arbeiter of the Catholic faith and the source of the fullness of faith.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They have to have a mind open enough because your “proof” isn’t sufficient. “Feeling it in my heart” is not sufficient. I bet there are a lot of people in cults that feel their cult leader is the messiah in their heart.

Miracles can’t be proof of Christianity either. First of all, just because we don’t know how or why something happened doesn’t mean there is a super natural power behind it. Secondly, even if there WAS a supernatural power behind some miracle it in no way proves the story of Jesus or the gospels or even that the supernatural power that was behind the miracle is benevolent, omnipotent, etc. Maybe it was Buddha? Maybe it was some alien that we have never heard of.

Well, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Non-believers are like horses. Not all however. Some have not yet awakened through no fault of their own. But today, dating from the Renaisance really, there is a certain kind of non-believer who will never admit that God ( by the Christian definition) exists, they will deny every thread of reason and fact of history leading to that conclusion and adopt any insane theory or philosophy to avoid reaching that conclusion. And today we have the phenomenon of the " New Athiest " who is quite militant and who is preying on the gullible to form a movement dedicated to the undermining of Christianity. I wonder what they plan to do with Islam? I’m afraid they will find a horse of a different color there, one not so patient and charitable. And I think they will find Eastern " religions " down right hostile to their ramblings. If you want to loose your head just try it out yourself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Do you really nag your head over a proof for your existence?

There is a lot of proof for our existence.

None proof of any god’s existence.

If it happens and there is a god(s), which one?

If we exists, does it mean that there must be a designer?

If a designer exists, who designed that designer?

This road is too long to stop, we may get tired before arriving.

Sticks and stones…
I have a great idea why don’t you take a little trip to Saudi Arabia and strutt your stuff over there. Or even India. Perhaps then, if you manage to survive, you will be a little more tolerant of all of us poor, ignorant, believers.

 

[User124]

Sticks and stones…
I have a great idea why don’t you take a little trip to Saudi Arabia and strutt your stuff over there. Or even India. Perhaps then, if you manage to survive, you will be a little more tolerant of all of us poor, ignorant, believers.

Are you serious? Nothing in my post that you quoted was offensive to anyone, why that anger??

 

[kbf1970060]

Are you serious? Nothing in my post that you quoted was offensive to anyone, why that anger??

Denial against God, might very well be an offense. … to demand proof, or support a demand for proof, of a God, whom you deny is absurd. … there can be no proof of God’s existence to those in denial, it’s a fundamental absurdity of contradiction. Maybe this is what the originator of the thread, needed to hear: you say, to the atheist, there can be no proof of God, until you take responsibility for your own resolution to your denial of God, 'til then, you’re disrespectuflly wasting everyone’s time. Denial is an atheist’s decision, and it is a decision that can bear no testimony to any proof of God. It’s unfortunate, but it really seems a bit insane, to provide proof of God’s existence, to one whom is in denial against God. Atheists have to assume responsibility for their own salvation, or their lack of it.

 

[KingofCharity]

Fossil fuels/primordial life forms are the basis for all of our fossil fuels. This is evidence of a caring God who is prudent and “plans ahead.” He is the Divine Engineer and has a specific purpose for choosing gradual, patient theistic evolution and Divine Revelation (guided by development of doctrine) as the primary means by which He communicates His unfathomable truths to His finite creatures. God knew that someday the Vatican would need a Web site to evangelize, which would require the Internet, which required energy rooted in fossil fuels, etc. Everything about God’s creation is rooted in unveiling, revelation, unfolding, development, and enlightenment. Just as our living bodies are a perpetual motion of development and growth, so too, is the Church’s understanding of Doctrine, and so too, is biology and the cosmos. Our Lord’s Laws of Nature have proven that He is in favor of development, slow process, and evolution. The laws of evolution/development/ongoing growth, are written into the objective reality of our existence, both in church law, natural law, and physical laws. Our God likes to Reveal knowledge slowly and deliberately back to his human creation. Our small minds can’t handle special, instantaneous creation, knowledge, and revelation in one immediate moment. TOOOOO much at once. We need it slowly and we need it given to us like children, hence, all of his revealed knowledge has come slowly and gradually, Divine Revelation, scientific revolution, Enlightenment, etc. All existent material (created matter) is in the hands of God. All matter is good and holy. All natural forces are under His dominion and reflect His Divine Mind and Wisdom. All knowledge of the Divine and natural material world is compatible and reconcilable. So God has been directing creation from day one. He is a poet, architect, comedian, engineer, scientist, dramatist, King,

 

[KingofCharity]

Also, humans were never supposed to be “tested by faith” in God’s original plan. We were designed to walk with our Lord and know him personally. As Dawkins always reminds us, why do people need to have faith? Why is believing in anything that one can’t detect with his five senses viewed as a virtue? Well, our blindness and need for faith is rooted in our disobedience and Fall. But just because we can’t detect God with our five senses, Romans in Scripture clearly tells us that all men inherently know God exists by the undeniable wonders and beauty of creation and the hunger in their hearts. Adam and Eve walked and talked with God, so our primordial hard wiring instinctively knows God. The Resurrection is a historical fact that God allowed humans to detect with their senses. The Church is now built on the objective evidence of the Resurrection and the witness of the Apostles, blood of martyrs, and miracles of Saints. We were never created to be “blind” to God’s presence and to be void of unequivocal knowledge of God. So, because of the Fall, humankind was thrust into the human condition. One of perceived “mystery,” that lacks a definitive and universal plan and directive for the plan, purpose, and meaning of life. So that explains why life often seems random, arbitrary, and absurd. Some say, “If life has a purpose and meaning, wouldn’t that purpose be immediately transparent and universally known and accepted by all people in the world instantaneously?”
After the Fall, this instantaneous, objective awareness regarding the plan, purpose, and meaning of life is no longer universal and immediately knowable. That is why we have to live through Revelation/Salvation History.

 

[User124]

Denial against God, might very well be an offense. … to demand proof, or support a demand for proof, of a God, whom you deny is absurd. … there can be no proof of God’s existence to those in denial, it’s a fundamental absurdity of contradiction. Maybe this is what the originator of the thread, needed to hear: you say, to the atheist, there can be no proof of God, until you take responsibility for your own resolution to your denial of God, 'til then, you’re disrespectuflly wasting everyone’s time. Denial is an atheist’s decision, and it is a decision that can bear no testimony to any proof of God. It’s unfortunate, but it really seems a bit insane, to provide proof of God’s existence, to one whom is in denial against God. Atheists have to assume responsibility for their own salvation, or their lack of it.

I think you are confusing between those who believe that a god exists and deny or reject him, and those who don’t believe in any god ( denying the existence of a god).

 

[SirWillliam]

I think you are confusing between those who believe that a god exists and deny or reject him, and those who don’t believe in any god ( denying the existence of a god).

Regardless of whether the atheist believes in God and denies Him or simply doesn’t believe
in God, it is truly a complete waste of time to try to use any argument to try to change an
atheist’s, like yourself’s mind. Every time you don’t capitalize God or Him or He when
writting about God, you show you’re an atheist. You’re just like the militant atheist Richard
Dawkins. Trying to speak to him about religion is wasting your breath. I don’t mind atheists
not believing in God, but when they stoop to insulting The Virgin Mary, which they do very
often (recently Dawkins called Mary “a cosmic doormat”) is when I get really annoyed.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Denial against God, might very well be an offense. … to demand proof, or support a demand for proof, of a God, whom you deny is absurd. … there can be no proof of God’s existence to those in denial, it’s a fundamental absurdity of contradiction.

I’ve got to echo User124 here. I don’t think that this is representational of many non-religious people. It sounds a little more descriptive of some variation of misotheism (possibly) than atheism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Every time you don’t capitalize God or Him or He when
writting about God, you show you’re an atheist. You’re just like the militant atheist Richard
Dawkins.

This is slightly new to me. While I’m familiar that not capitalizing that “G” can be taken as offensive (I personally tend to use the name Yahweh, especially since I tend to be around people of eastern religions for which “God” refers to an entity with different characteristics than Yahweh). But I can’t say that even when I was a Christian there was much emphasis on capitalizing the “H”. I’ve never heard mention of that being important until reading your message.

 

[Mystic3]

God is a mystery that can be seen and understand only by enlightenment. One can see God only in enlightenment. The Bible says: “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” Who cleans his heart (his mind) with spiritual exercises, enters the dimension of God and sees God. You must be a saint (an enlightened one), to be able to know God in depth. A proof of God is therefore ultimately possible only through enlightenment. With funding of physics or logic, we can describe God very limited and therefore can prove God only some aspects of God. Science cannot explore more than circumstantial evidences for God. If one really want to know whether God exists, one must realize enlightenment. Or one has to trust the enlightened as witnesses for God. There is no other way for the proof of God. God is proven by the enlightened. And there are many witnesses.

Wikipedia: Mysticism is the knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, including experience of and even communion with a supreme being. (…) Many if not all of the world’s great religions have arisen around the teachings of mystics (including Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tze, and Krishna); and most religious traditions describe fundamental mystical experience.
:newidea::angel1::yeah_me:

 

[SirWillliam]

I’ve got to echo User124 here. I don’t think that this is representational of many non-religious people. It sounds a little more descriptive of some variation of misotheism (possibly) than atheism.

How can a person believe in God but deny Him at the same time? I’m not a theologian,
but this just doesn’t make sense. Why believe in God and deny Him, too? I think you’re
just referring to people who formerly believed in God (as a child, maybe), but then denies or
rejects God, and is, therefore, now an atheist. You can believe in God and then deny or reject Him once, but after that you’re an atheist, and you don’t believe in God anymore.

 

[User124]

Regardless of whether the atheist believes in God and denies Him or simply doesn’t believe
in God, it is truly a complete waste of time to try to use any argument to try to change an
atheist’s, like yourself’s mind. Every time you don’t capitalize God or Him or He when
writting about God, you show you’re an atheist. You’re just like the militant atheist Richard
Dawkins. Trying to speak to him about religion is wasting your breath. I don’t mind atheists
not believing in God, but when they stoop to insulting The Virgin Mary, which they do very
often (recently Dawkins called Mary “a cosmic doormat”) is when I get really annoyed.

A reply to your first phrase: " If the atheist believes in God and denies him".
If a person believes in a god and denies that god, she or he won’t be an atheist!

Just to mention this:

First: I’m not Richard Dawkins.

Two: I never insulted the virgin Mary ( Other than you might think that she is now offended by my disbelief or my personal actions, that would be another story), but I never insulted the character of virgin Mary when talking to anyone.

Three: I don’t think if there is a god, he would be offended by the use of “g” instead of “G”.

If you have anything against anyone, I’m not their representative.

How can a person believe in God but deny Him at the same time? I’m not a theologian,
but this just doesn’t make sense. Why believe in God and deny Him, too? I think you’re
just referring to people who formerly believed in God (as a child, maybe), but then denies or
rejects God, and is, therefore, now an atheist. You can believe in God and then deny or reject Him once, but after that you’re an atheist, and you don’t believe in God anymore.

Satan, fallen angels, Satanists, angry at God believers, and a whole list of “sinners”, they believe in God and deny him.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How can a person believe in God but deny Him at the same time? I’m not a theologian,
but this just doesn’t make sense.

I’m making an assumption. And I could be wrong in my assumption. But it is based on past conversations in which I’ve come across statements similar to the one to which I was responding. In the past I’ve come across similar statements in which it was being declared that an atheist knows that God exists but has chosen to deny (def. refuse to admit or acknowledge) such. I’ve seen that unambiguously repeated in these forums. And among other places it was perpetuated at a couple of the churches I attended growing up (Southern Baptist, Methodist). I introduce “misotheism” for consideration here as it may fit better.

Why believe in God and deny Him, too?

It’s not a position I can personally relate to. But I’ve known of people that, after some personal loss, take a position of hatred toward God (misotheist). I’ve seen such people referred to as atheist. Not a fitting label since an atheist doesn’t evaluate the God proposition as true.

I think you’re just referring to people who formerly believed in God (as a child, maybe), but then denies or rejects God, and is, therefore, now an atheist. You can believe in God and then deny or reject Him once, but after that you’re an atheist, and you don’t believe in God anymore.

Well, yes and no. They way I use it would be inclusive of that group but also a few others.

When I use the term “atheist” I use it to refer to any one that hasn’t a belief of a god (here I think a lower case g is appropriate as I’m not only including the Abrahamic concept of God, but also some of the polytheistic concepts. I had a friend in high school that was a polytheist but before graduation no longer believed his gods existed). This is regardless of whether or not the person once held a belief for one. I’ve got one friend that had been religious but no longer is. She is raising her daughter to be familiar with Christianity, Islam, and some other religions so she can understand cultural references but it’s not a way of life for them. She’s not trying to influence her daughter’s membership with a religion. Neither she nor I have asked her daughter if she believes that God exists. But if it turns out that she does not then I would also consider her to be an atheist in which case she may have never had any other religious classification.