Does the claim "there is no God" require evidence/reasoning to support it?

[JohnDamian]

Are you some kind of a solipsist? This is absurd. There is simply no reason whatsoever why I should discount the very very very very high status probability that I and the world do exist.

I am not a solipsist but I think if one is trying to be accurate and precise one should certainly draw the distinction between a certain reality and a highly probably one.

I would have thought such precision would be appealing to a scientific person as yourself. Being ambiguous, innacurate or generally presumptuous is dangerous.

 

[tonyrey]

I just pinched myself and it nipped. It looks like I do exist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Does the claim “there is no God” require evidence/reasoning to support it?

The person who says “There is no god” is making a nonsensical statement.

The person who makes such a statement is clearly drawing a conclusion based on the bias that a thing does not exist unless you can prove it exists. This position in itself is indefensible. Anything might exist beyond our ability to prove it exists in the universe we know and inhabit.

So the only alternative is to say, “I don’t know for a fact that there is no God, but since I haven’t seen evidence of God, I’m withholding my judgment.” This is the classic definition of an agnostic, not an atheist. So far as the agnostic is concerned, he escapes the intellectual dilemma of atheism, but he does not escape the final judgment that awaits him for rejecting God. Both cases constitute a refusal to encounter the God who made us, and constitute as well the worst kind of ingratitude … spitting in the face of God, the kind of spitting that in the end blows back on the face of he who spits.

 

[JDaniel]

The trouble is that this “saving grace” is too fluid.

At the very least you are a thinker. At most, you ravenously desire a concise and powerful rationale in order to believe. (You will find it. But, not yet.)

As to the fluidity of the saving grace of Catholicism: God did not create us in order to have our souls rot in Hell. His preference, I’m sure, is to somehow “save” everyone - and possibly everything. However, neither of us is God. So, we cannot know what is involved in a creation performed solely in order that the Creator may bask in the knowledge of Himself. That, at first glance, sounds somewhat self-centered. But, when one considers that ultimately, the triune God, and all of His Creations, want nothing more than to participate with that in some manner He must safeguard the vision.

We, as mere mortals, cannot stand in place of God. We can only guess at His purposes. Ultimately, this mortal battlefield is not to be our final resting place. He knows this. As we used to say when we were kids, our lives are nothing more than a gnat on an elephants rear! 70 years is such a tiny fraction of the potential infinity of time that is, or will be, the Universe.

I am trying to be logical. The assumption that God is infinitely just and merciful would mean that God would never “punish” anyone who has never committed any sin (as an unborn cannot do that) with eternal damnation. This is so simple, is it not? Since there is no “limbo” any more, what else can be the fate of an unborn than heaven?

Again, We cannot stand in for God. Our understanding of God’s Creative Act is but a distant analogy of the almightiness that characterizes the ultimate being.

The Church recognizes a purgatory. The Church recognizes that the frailty of humans can easily find us in positions of invincible ignorance. The Church (and God) makes allowances for these deficiencies in our knowledge. We have no idea where we will be, or, what it will be like to be in purgatory, or, to die in invincible ignorance. Hell is for those whose souls have corrupted beyond save-ability. Otherwise, we have reconciliation through the Church here on earth, reconciliation through purgatory, and pure ignorance to help us get reconciled.

You can’t enter any competition for a place and expect it to be handed to you.

I don’t think that I am anti-catholic. I am questioning the beliefs as exposed by some posters on the board. I am very much aware that this is a moderated discussion, and the decision of what is permissible is the prerogative of the moderators. I would never question the decision of the moderators, and so far my posts have not been deemed inappropriate. That is good enough for me.

(It’s a good thing I’m not a mod!)

Realize that many Catholics are here to learn, even though many will give their thoughts. Some of their thoughts might be unmeritorious… Some of their thoughts might be incorrect conclusions brought forward through life from childhood. For myself, I apologize if I have provided misleading information about the beliefs of the Church.

There is a two volume set of books - I believe they are called the, Teachings of the Catholic Church. If you want certified belief, I would suggest finding them on-line, or something.

In all events, God bless you,
jd

 

[Moonstruck888]

Do you equate **you **with your body?

Naturally.

The phrase “the Jew’s mother” is obviously intended to offend…

It certainly wasn’t intended as offense. It was actually a stolen quote, I can’t remember who the original author was, that the trouble with Christianity stems from the fact that one half worship a Jew and the other half worship the Jew’s mother.

 

[JDaniel]

Actually there is. We have scanned the Universe with spectroscopes, with radio telescopes through the whole EM band. We have looked into the furthest interstices of space, back in time billions of years. We have found objects and phenomena to boggle the mind and fire the imagination.

One thing we have yet to find is God. Even most Theists have pushed God outside of the known Universe to try to explain this frankly embarrassing derth of evidence away.

In actual fact, the New Testament of the Bible explicitly states that worshipping anything outside the trinity is blasphemy and idolatory. This means that Catholics, who worship the Jew’s mother, are hanging their coats on very shaky nails.

Just so you know, Catholics do not Worship the Holy Mother. We Venerate her. We pray that she hear us and take our supplications to God. We ask for her intercession. We know we are frail and that occasionally we sin without massive intent. We want to go to our deaths in as close to a pure state of grace as possible.

And, yes, the Universe is an incredible Creation. Just to multiply the smallest particles that are the building blocks of matter by the number of seen and unseen orbs in the vastness of space, is mind boggling. Who needs drugs?!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Moonstruck

*Actually there is. We have scanned the Universe with spectroscopes, with radio telescopes through the whole EM band. We have looked into the furthest interstices of space, back in time billions of years. We have found objects and phenomena to boggle the mind and fire the imagination.

One thing we have yet to find is God. *

You can’t even find Santa Claus! What good are you?

HEY! I WAS Santa Clause once!

God bless,
jd

 

[Moonstruck888]

Pride comes before a fall…

My brother, the person known by the forum moniker Charles Darwin originally, has been banned numerous times. I have the same familiarity with the operation of computers that he does, and even if I couldn’t get around a ban, he could do it for me, as you’ve seen.

 

[JDaniel]

Your **physicalist **notion of evidence is clearly defective. It wouldn’t even show that you exist!

You will be very fortunate if you get away with that vituperative calumny…

You don’t have to spell; we’re all adults here!!!

God bless,
jd

 

[Moonstruck888]

I am not a solipsist but I think if one is trying to be accurate and precise one should certainly draw the distinction between a certain reality and a highly probably one.

I think that in this case that distinction is of absolutely no importance whatsoever.

I would have thought such precision would be appealing to a scientific person as yourself. Being ambiguous, innacurate or generally presumptuous is dangerous.

That is because you are blissfully unaware that science is a method based on taking as read the fact that the physical world exists and is consistent.

 

[Nan_S]

The person who says “There is no god” is making a nonsensical statement.

The person who makes such a statement is clearly drawing a conclusion based on the bias that a thing does not exist unless you can prove it exists. This position in itself is indefensible. Anything might exist beyond our ability to prove it exists in the universe we know and inhabit.

The athiests’ argument, that the existence of God requires extraordinary proof, is itself an illogical statement designed to cut off debate. The proof for the existence of God is actually quite ordinary. God makes His existence manifest in all things around us. Just as an archaeologist proves the existence of ancient civilizations by examining what they built, so we also can see and know the existence of God by examining the creator’s handiwork.

As to proving Jesus’ resurrection, once again no extraordinary proof is required. It was an extraordinary event. But the proof is made known to us in very ordinary ways by hundreds of people who saw the resurrected Christ, used the ordinary means of human senses to confirm that He was alive again, and then testified to the resurrection as truth by sacrificing their own lives rather than recanting.

Psalm 19:2-4 The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builder’s craft. One day to the next conveys that message; one night to the next imparts that knowledge. There is no word or sound; no voice is heard; Yet their report goes forth through all the earth, their message, to the ends of the world.

Romans 1:19-22 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools.

Extraordinary evidence, standing by itself, is of little value. It is too disconnected and unbelievable. When a foundation of ordinary evidence is laid, however, extraordinary evidence is useful to seal the argument. Yet, the atheist attempts to cut off discussion by dismissing ordinary evidence for the existence of God and insisting they will accept only extraordinary evidence. This is a foolish position.

Luke 16:31 If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moonstruck

*My brother, the person known as Charles Darwin originally, has been banned numerous times. I have the same familiarity with the operation of computers that he does, and even if I couldn’t get around a ban, he could do it for me, as you’ve seen. *

Exactly how old are you?

 

[Moonstruck888]

I realize what must be done. It has been done. However, you have completely and surreptitiously modified the rules of demonstrative logic in order to keep your thesis from allowing your eyes to be opened.

Logic is only good for building computer circuits. In order to demonstrate a prediciton it must be proven by scientific method to be concurrent with physical experience.

I can’t do much better than Aquinas. Nor can I do much better than Anselm.

You certainly couldn’t do much worse.

God IS Prime Mover of everything. God IS the First Efficient Cause. God IS every thing’s Necessary Cause. God IS the most perfectly Predicable Being and thus is the cause of all inferior geneses, God IS the Final Cause. God IS the only unknown exigency to enter the minds of men and thus must exist as we know nothing that isn’t previously familiar to us in some way. And, finally, God must be the Creator as finite Being cannot self-create.

You can do several things with the foregoing: you can trash them all; you can fail to give them sufficient consideration in order to know and understand them; or, you can deny them. In the latter case, you then have an affirmative burden of proof.

God bless,
jd

Every single thing you’ve quoted from Aquinas and Anselm is an assumption. There is no proof of any first cause or prime mover.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Exactly how old are you?

Old enough to know better than to rise to the bait of your incessant trolling.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The athiests’ argument, that the existence of God requires extraordinary proof, is itself an illogical statement designed to cut off debate. The proof for the existence of God is actually quite ordinary. God makes His existence manifest in all things around us. Just as an archaeologist proves the existence of ancient civilizations by examining what they built, so we also can see and know the existence of God by examining the creator’s handiwork.

Oh yes, do let’s examine it.

So you want God to be responsible for a Universe of failed solar systems, imploding stars, empty space and planets that resemble Milton’s hell, leaving one little lump of rock that can support life on parts of it’s surface, some of the time? A universe where 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the space is so hostile to human life that it would wipe us all out near instantaneously?

All this for the benefit of a creature so appallingly designed that it’s primative limb structure causes it’s arms to be prone to breaking at the wrist and it’s teeth don’t even fit in it’s jaw bones, condemning all those without access to modern dentistry a lifetime of chronic pain? A creature so badly designed that without midwifery, one in five women would die in childbirth because the head of the child can’t hit through the pelvis. A creature so badly designed that it has 430 oncogenes built into every cell in it’s mutating and aging body?

All of these things are perfectly comprehensible in terms of a creature that has unique character combinations in a nested heriarchy. Not really so in terms of an infallible designer.

Is that what you want God to take repsonsibility for?

 

[JDaniel]

Logic is only good for building computer circuits. In order to demonstrate a prediciton it must be proven by scientific method to be concurrent with physical experience.

Sorry, Moonstruck. I believe that all of your replies to my post are uncharitable, in the light of my intent. But, I’ll be your Huckleberry. In answer to your first: who says?

You certainly couldn’t do much worse.

To your second, I probably have done much worse.

Every single thing you’ve quoted from Aquinas and Anselm is an assumption. There is no proof of any first cause or prime mover.

In answer to your third, you have made nothing more than an unjustified - and, unjustifiable, assertion. You can’t prove God exists, so, neither can I. Yadda, yadda, ya, ya. . . .

You are on Catholic Answers Forum, not some juvenile, anti-theist website. Grow up.

God bless,
jd

 

[Moonstruck888]

Sorry, Moonstruck. I believe that all of your replies to my post are uncharitable, in the light of my intent. But, I’ll be your Huckleberry. In answer to your first: who says?

Results. Philosophy is a fast track to a career in the convenience food industry while science and engineering have built the world we live in.

In answer to your third, you have made nothing more than an unjustified - and, unjustifiable, assertion. You can’t prove God exists, so, neither can I. Yadda, yadda, ya, ya. . . .

You are on Catholic Answers Forum, not some juvenile, anti-theist website. Grow up.

God bless,
jd

Grow up? If you can prove there’s a prime mover then why not stop being petulant and do so?

 

[davidv]

Results. Philosophy is a fast track to a career in the convenience food industry while science and engineering have built the world we live in.

Grow up? If you can prove there’s a prime mover then why not stop being petulant and do so?

Neither point says anything relevant to the post you were responding to.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Neither point says anything relevant to the post you were responding to.

I don’t agree.

But then I really don’t get the way philosophers think at all… I don’t suppose I ever will… Meandering thoughts untested with corrolation to observations and experimentation based on physical evidence are tantamount to a deadly sin as far as I’m concerned.

 

[davidv]

I don’t agree.

But then I really don’t get the way philosophers think at all… I don’t suppose I ever will… Meandering thoughts untested with corrolation to observations and experimentation based on physical evidence are tantamount to a deadly sin as far as I’m concerned.

Unless you learn to present your position in a rational, logical fashion, don’t expect many to take your position very seriously.

Edit: And this post is very good example of how not to do it.