Does God exist?

[Dispector]

Believing in the Big Bang takes as much, or more, faith as believing in God. Why do you suppose you accept one more easily than the other?

agnosticforlife:

Scientifically. I dunno, but an unstable, explosive particle being set off is a lot more plausible to me than an invisible man in the sky calling everything good as he makes it.

I just wanted to mention that the Big Bang Theory was actually first proposed by George Lemaitre (a Catholic priest and physicist). It was Gregor Mendel (an Augustinian priest and scientist) who first delved into genetics and heredity which was later used to outline Evolution. Recently, even the Pope said that evolution is not contradictory to Catholic teachings. Additionally, Copernicus presented a theory contradictory to Catholic teachings and was well liked within the Church. Galileo had issues not because of his theory, but because of an attempt to insult the Church. That part is often forgotten.

So, the major scientific issues people have with the Church are moot and without merit.

Regarding the OP, I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. Nor, can I prove He does not exist. To step in either direction is to make a leap of faith given each lacks incontrovertible proof. However, from my experience, making the leap of faith to God is one that has proven an unquestionable improvement in my life. It is remarkably more rewarding than the leap of faith I took towards atheism.

You don’t need to leave your brain at the door if you’re Catholic. That was one of my biggest misconceptions when coming back into the fold.

 

[edward_george]

Thomas Aquinas certainly thought the existence of God could be proven philosophically–i.e., the mind can be satisfied that there is a God, even if science cannot (which would be impossible, since science is not competent to judge on the matter).

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

For additional commentary on Aquinas’ Five Proofs:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae

-ACEGC

 

[WWJD_FAKB]

Regarding the OP, I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God. Nor, can I prove He does not exist. To step in either direction is to make a leap of faith given each lacks incontrovertible proof. However, from my experience, making the leap of faith to God is one that has proven an unquestionable improvement in my life. It is remarkably more rewarding than the leap of faith I took towards atheism.

I agree completely.
A famous French man, Voltaire, also agreed with your logic.
“To believe in God is impossible - to not believe in Him is absurd”

 

[dianaballein]

We don’t claim to have proof that can be tested in a lab, although there have been many verifiable miracles down through the centuries, unless you hold that everyone at all times have been deceived or mistaken.

What we claim is that belief in God is reasonable. For proof we point out the stars in the sky and the sense of wonder looking at them brings, the beauty of a rose, the faith of a child.

We believe in Christianity because we believe in the Resurrection of Christ. And we believe in the Resurrection of Christ because he was seen, heard, and touched by living witnesses–hundreds of them, afterwards.

As I stated above, God cannot have an influence in our life unless we ask him to be a part of our life. After all, God is a person, not a concept only. It’d be like asking for someone in China to have an influence in your life with whom you have never communicated or wish to communicate. He is waiting for you to ask him. It’s just that simple, really, for God is simple and plain, if not easy to comprehend.

THIS was a beautiful response.

 

[crowonsnow]

I have been plagued by this question for many years of my life, and I’ve never been sure of the answer…Can someone help me make up my mind?

I don’t think anyone knows what a god is. That’s why there is no consensus that any particular definition of one is any more credible than the next.

I think people like to pretend to know and like to invent their own definitions based on their feelings, even including that gods are unknowable and beyond our ability to comprehend. As such a god can be anything and everything based simply on a person’s feelings.

 

[grannymh]

As I stated above, God cannot have an influence in our life unless we ask him to be a part of our life. After all, God is a person, not a concept only. It’d be like asking for someone in China to have an influence in your life with whom you have never communicated or wish to communicate. He is waiting for you to ask him. It’s just that simple, really, for God is simple and plain, if not easy to comprehend.

Dear Della,

May I offer a different view. God loves us unconditionally.

God loves agnosticforlife with no strings attached. God loves you and I and everyone else in the same unconditional way. What I think you are saying is that it is very important that we respond to God’s love. The desire to communicate belongs to both God and us. In a sense, God does wait for us to communicate with Him because He respects our ability to choose how we act. The amazing thing we need to realize is that even though God is “waiting”, He is still loving us unconditionally. His loving us does not depend on our noticing it.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

 

[mich2]

I have been plagued by this question for many years of my life, and I’ve never been sure of the answer…Can someone help me make up my mind?

I personally would start with an event which happened on October 13, 1917. The so called miracle of the sun at Fatima Portugal. I would ask you to read everything that you can as to what happened on that particular day,who were the witnesses and then, try explaining it scientifically.

Here is a link for start .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun
Andre

 

[dianaballein]

Dear Della,

May I offer a different view. God loves us unconditionally.

God loves agnosticforlife with no strings attached. God loves you and I and everyone else in the same unconditional way. What I think you are saying is that it is very important that we respond to God’s love. The desire to communicate belongs to both God and us. In a sense, God does wait for us to communicate with Him because He respects our ability to choose how we act. The amazing thing we need to realize is that even though God is “waiting”, He is still loving us unconditionally. His loving us does not depend on our noticing it.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

This is very true. I myself never felt the love and warmth of God until I opened up my heart and mind to the possibility of it. I swore off “religion” most of my life. My parents let me choose what to believe or not believe. This made it easy to shun…seriously easy. It was in watching how the Holy Spirit worked in others that I have met in my life that caused me to want to find out more…and it was then that I learned what it felt like to have faith in something greater than myself, and something that has given me a tremendous sense of peace and purpose without losing my sense of self. God is good…all the time…even during times when bad things happen and I can’t see far enough down the road to discover his plan.

OP, my son was agnostic for so long. It’s a never ending discussion…the “blind faith vs. scientific fact” discussion. Definitely one worth having, and I appreciate you asking. I sincerely hope you are open to all we have to share with you. Much Peace!

 

[AaronK88]

I have been plagued by this question for many years of my life, and I’ve never been sure of the answer…Can someone help me make up my mind?

If the content of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere was slightly lower or higher, we would all be dead. If our moon was a little bit smaller, or far larger, we would be dead. If our Earth was placed a few million miles in one direction or the other, we would all be dead. Well, we never would have existed in the first place.

If the sun was slightly larger or smaller, or slightly hotter or colder, we wouldn’t exist.

I could keep rambling on with variables.

It is also not against Catholic teaching to suggest that God could have created the Universe using the big bang. God is energy, God is the essence of the universe. God is so powerful that God could create a tiny ball of energy so powerful, so strong, that it could explode and create everything in the cosmos. Why not? God is God.

I am an ex-atheist. I too struggled with your question for many years. I didn’t start thinking about the question of God until my eighth grade year in middle school. I’ve always been a thinker. I became a militant atheist in high school, up until about my senior year. It was over the summer of my senior year that I had an experience, what you would call a spiritual experience, and in one day I completely changed my views on God forever. The details of my experience are irrelevant, but I know God exists. Everything is too perfect for God not to exist.

 

[Sinner1]

I wan’t life to mean something and be more than a random accident!

Peace

I think statements like this actually deter non-believers. It gives the sense that one is insecure with the world and believes in God because it makes them feel better.

 

[cranster]

We can ask if God exists because we can think for ourselves.

Scientifically. I dunno, but an unstable, explosive particle being set off is a lot more plausible to me than an invisible man in the sky calling everything good as he makes it.

Why does the particle even exist at all? Where did it come from? “I don’t know” as an answer only indicates lack of interest in searching for an answer.

Logically if God does exist then God is a person with an intellect and the ability to communicate. Have you tried to make contact?

Just a quick personal story. I do home care in my spare time, and one of the people I care for could never get over the question “Who created God”. After many weeks of talking about it I was still never able to give him an acceptable answer. I suggested we start saying the Rosary together everyday I’m with him and just see what happens. To make a long story short, after some time doing this he said he found peace in that prayer, and wanted me to wake him if he was sleeping before I left so we could pray the Rosary. He said due to COPD he hadn’t slept all night in years, but twice he left the Rosary cd on all night and both times he slept all night. I understand this is not proof of God, but if you actually reach out to Him He will reach out to you.

 

[VociMike]

We can ask if God exists because we can think for ourselves.

Why? Other animals can’t. Don’t you find it surprising how different we are than any other creature? Don’t you find it surprising that we wonder about things like God?

Scientifically. I dunno, but an unstable, explosive particle being set off is a lot more plausible to me than an invisible man in the sky calling everything good as he makes it.

But that doesn’t answer anything. Why does the particle exist? Why do the laws of nature allow the particle to become the universe we live in (a universe very fine-tuned to life, it turns out)? And why does the particle lead to beings who ask why does the particle exist and why are the laws of nature what they are?

 

[VociMike]

Assumption #1: You believe that Occam’s Razor is correct.

No, but I do believe it is a reasonable test to apply to such questions. It is not, certainly, incorrect in any general sense.

Assumption #2: You believe that “God” is a simple answer. In fact, it is not. To account for all the problems with an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, all-merciful, all-just, personal God of the Israelites, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the one who sent himself to die to save us from sin, etc, is a very difficult process. Volumes of theology written to address the various apparent contradictions therein do not incline this reader to believe that your notion of God is simple at all.

This is all debatable, that is the point. It is not, as you apparently claim, an indisputable fact that God is a less simple answer than any other answer. Even though many atheists make just that assumption, usually without even knowing that they are making it.

Assumption #3: That we *must *answer your question for why “everything” exists. If no available answer convinces us thoroughly, we must pick the one most likely to be true - even if it’s objective likelihood is infinitesimal in our minds. Your argument assumes “None Of The Above” is not permitted for a reasonable person. On the contrary, when presented with a question in which all available answers do not satisfy, the reasonable thing to do is say “I don’t know.”

No, not must. But clearly the OP is interested in such answers. Anyway, I don’t believe anybody who truly goes through life investigating “all available answers” will be stuck on “I don’t know”. That’s just not how I see the human intellect working.

 

[Exalt]

No, but I do believe it is a reasonable test to apply to such questions. It is not, certainly, incorrect in any general sense.

This is all debatable, that is the point. It is not, as you apparently claim, an indisputable fact that God is a less simple answer than any other answer. Even though many atheists make just that assumption, usually without even knowing that they are making it.

No, not must. But clearly the OP is interested in such answers. Anyway, I don’t believe anybody who truly goes through life investigating “all available answers” will be stuck on “I don’t know”. That’s just not how I see the human intellect working.

If you recommend Deism, that’s fine. Many intelligent people have believed that. I think it’s a bit silly, because there’s just not enough evidence to support the Deist hypothesis. I think better answers will arise, and they will be based on physics, mathematics, and science - not religion.

However, if you’re recommending that this young man believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus - and you’re claiming that this God is the simplest answer - then you’re clearly and obviously wrong. It’s not the simple answer, it’s extremely complex, and we can argue that on the merits.

 

[VociMike]

If you recommend Deism, that’s fine. Many intelligent people have believed that. I think it’s a bit silly, because there’s just not enough evidence to support the Deist hypothesis. I think better answers will arise, and they will be based on physics, mathematics, and science - not religion.

However, if you’re recommending that this young man believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus - and you’re claiming that this God is the simplest answer - then you’re clearly and obviously wrong. It’s not the simple answer, it’s extremely complex, and we can argue that on the merits.

If you want to demonstrate that God is a less simple answer to the existence of everything than some other answer, then please proceed.

 

[Dispector]

If you want to demonstrate that God is a less simple answer to the existence of everything than some other answer, then please proceed.

The question of simplicity or complexity is irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. Truth can take the form of simplicity or complexity.

 

[ckempston]

__> yeah I do. A small, dense particle can explode to create larger, less dense objects.

Ok, we still don’t know where this dense particle came from or what caused it to spontaneously decide to explode. So, the room you’re in, your house, your entire neighborhood, our planet, the other planets, our sun, and all the billions of stars, and other smaller objects in the universe were compacted to a dense particle the size of a pinhead. That’s what you’re saying you believe, right? Based on our current science, that theory is almost universally accepted. However, I personally find it easier to believe in the supernatural than this theory. That’s just my take on it.

Sorry about the red drift, shift whatever thing it is. I remember it was explained to me originally as everything drifting, so the confusion arose there. Anyway, I believe in the Big Bang and other related ideas because they actually make sense, as opposed to the invisible man in the sky. Everything we know about religion is essentially a contradiction.

Sure, red shift is one of the ways scientists found the universe is expanding.

What about these contradictions? I think this is probably getting more to the heart of the matter. You do realize that science is basically religious apologetics applied to the natural world, right? You know that it was religious people who developed the scientific method?

Where you see a contradiction, it may be a simple misunderstanding. Somewhat similar to the way Young Earth Creationists will wrongly claim that Evolution contradicts conservation of energy. They see a contradiction, but what’s really going on is that they refuse to try to understand science and accept the explanations of scientists.

In any case, if you’re looking for solid proof, you will likely never find it. That’s where faith comes in, but as I pointed out, you already have faith in some things (because you believe things that science tells us without actually experiencing things first-hand).

 

[ckempston]

The question of simplicity or complexity is irrelevant to the question of the existence of God. Truth can take the form of simplicity or complexity.

It is not a matter of some subjective “simplicity” or “complexity.” Occams Razor has a clear definition, though most summarize it as the “simplest” answer. Occams Razor actually says that answers should make as few assumptions as possible.

Existence of the supernatural is one assumption.

A naturalist explanation is a whole truck load of assumptions.

 

[Della]

Dear Della,

May I offer a different view. God loves us unconditionally.

God loves agnosticforlife with no strings attached. God loves you and I and everyone else in the same unconditional way. What I think you are saying is that it is very important that we respond to God’s love. The desire to communicate belongs to both God and us. In a sense, God does wait for us to communicate with Him because He respects our ability to choose how we act. The amazing thing we need to realize is that even though God is “waiting”, He is still loving us unconditionally. His loving us does not depend on our noticing it.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

Naturally, you and I understand this, but I was trying to take the OP one step at a time, just addressing his statement that he has never felt God’s influence in his life. I hope he is open to the truth that God loves us, but considering he isn’t even sure if there is a God, he may not be or he may have objections to it, as do many who have, as yet, no real knowledge of God. It can be hard to see how God loves us when you can’t even understand how/why he exists. But, you are right in what you wrote, of course.

 

[crowonsnow]

Existence of the supernatural is one assumption.

A naturalist explanation is a whole truck load of assumptions.

Occam’s razor recommends using the explanation that uses the fewest entities. If you choose to assume there is something supernatural, you still have to account for the natural. Occam’s razor therefore makes the natural the simplest and obvious choice by cutting out anything alleged to be other than natural.