Evidence for god or gods?

[tony12356]

How about you provide evidence for a lack of existence? We believe. You don’t. Both of those are expressions of faith. We can’t prove to you that God exists, you can’t prove He doesn’t.

The difference is, we’re not pathetic enough to spend time trying to start arguments on non-believer websites.

Get a different hobby.

They don’t both rely on faith. A lack of belief in the existence of God =/= Believing God doesn’t exist.

One of them is rejecting the assertion of a claim and the other is making a claim. You are making the claim that a God exists. I’m rejecting the assertion of that claim. Since you made the claim, then you hold the burden of proof. This would be the same if someone claimed that no Gods exist. Lastly, I don’t see how its pathetic to look for true. If a God does exist then I want to know about it.

 

[Thom18]

None.*

*citation needed.

 

[Brassring]

They don’t both rely on faith. A lack of belief in the existence of God =/= Believing God doesn’t exist.

One of them is rejecting the assertion of a claim and the other is making a claim. You are making the claim that a God exists. I’m rejecting the assertion of that claim. Since you made the claim, then you hold the burden of proof. This would be the same if someone claimed that no Gods exist. Lastly, I don’t see how its pathetic to look for true. If a God does exist then I want to know about it.

How about this:

There is absolutely no evidence that you will accept. You may go now.

 

[rinnie]

We’re getting a bit far afield. Rinnie, Tony asked for evidence of God. It doesn’t make much sense to discuss Jesus – even vis-a-vis the claim that He is the Son of God – if we haven’t addressed Tony’s question of whether we reasonably claim that God exists.

But Jesus would be my physical proof. Jesus is God made Man.

 

[tony12356]

How about this:

There is absolutely no evidence that you will accept. You may go now.

Thanks for assuming what I will and won’t accept as evidence. I was a christian by the way and it was people like you who made me distance myself from others who called themselves Christian. With all due respect, it appears that you have forgotten about 1 peter 3:15.

 

[reggieM]

I was a christian by the way and it was people like you who made me distance myself from others who called themselves Christian.

What made you stop believing that God exists?

 

[tony12356]

What made you stop believing that God exists?

First it started with rejecting how most churches acted. I couldn’t stand it that these churches kept begging for money from lower and middle class people, but yet they spend it on so much expensive equipment that they didn’t need. I found that just wrong to put pressure on to people, just so you can spend it own a flat screen tv, I also couldn’t stand it that many Christians tried to force their beliefs onto others. Over time I distance myself from people like that. On the other hand, I was always interested in science and as the years continued, I rejected more and more about what genesis said. Finally, around a year ago I was asked the question “why do I believe in what the bible said.” So I learned about basic philosophy and tried to look for evidence that Jesus actually existed and was the son of God. I couldn’t find anything that actually proved it. I started to read the bible more and even prayed multiple times for an answer. I’m still looking for evidence and reading the bible, but I’m not convinced that even God exists.

 

[Wesrock]

Once again, you are using your definition of God, which isn’t the definition that is used in everyday use. Also, I already gave you my definition of God, but you are still refusing to answer my question by using my definition of God. If you wish to talk through me by rejecting the way I’m defining my terms, then go ahead. However, we aren’t getting anywhere by doing this.

First, “my” definition of God is the one put forward by the Catholic Church and has been accepted philosophically for over 2,000 years among Christians, including great theologians such as Saint Augustine, Saint Anselm, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Liebniz. There are some nuances between their understandings, but the broad strokes are very similar. That you aren’t familiar with this presentation of God as metaphysically simple, unmoved mover, first cause, impassible, identifying God as this first principle, yadda yadda, doesn’t mean I’m not using a very traditional understanding. Once the first principle is established, questions as to whether this is an intellect, a will, omnipotent, one, omniscient, etc… follow. Demonstrating that it can’t be less than omnipotent and be a first cause, or can’t be less than omniscient and be a first cause… But not before.

Second, can you please point my back to your definition and original questions that concern it? Maybe I can tie the two together better for you.

 

[Wesrock]

First it started with rejecting how most churches acted. I couldn’t stand it that these churches kept begging for money from lower and middle class people, but yet they spend it on so much expensive equipment that they didn’t need. I found that just wrong to put pressure on to people, just so you can spend it own a flat screen tv, I also couldn’t stand it that many Christians tried to force their beliefs onto others.

Weeds among the wheat.

Over time I distance myself from people like that. On the other hand, I was always interested in science and as the years continued, I rejected more and more about what genesis said. Finally, around a year ago I was asked the question “why do I believe in what the bible said.” So I learned about basic philosophy…

I would suggest that you continue to expand your philosophical inquiry.

As for Genesis, that’s a complicated topic, but the Catholic Church doesn’t demand fundamentalist literalism in interpreting it. And there are sainted theologians from over a thousand years ago who didn’t take the idea of a seven day creation literally. But the question of your topic is atheism vs theism, not Christianity specifically, no? One could be convinced by the natural theology arguments for God without becoming Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. The “Okay I’m a theist, why should I be Christian?” is a separate discussion.

And while I do love natural theology I must remember that not all people are persuaded that way. Some are convinced by the history or testimony of the Church, others by a spiritual connection they’ve made.

 

[tony12356]

First, “my” definition of God is the one put forward by the Catholic Church and has been accepted philosophically for over 2,000 years among Christians, including great theologians such as Saint Augustine, Saint Anselm, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Liebniz. There are some nuances between their understandings, but the broad strokes are very similar. That you aren’t familiar with this presentation of God as metaphysically simple, unmoved mover, first cause, impassible, identifying God as this first principle, yadda yadda, doesn’t mean I’m not using a very traditional understanding. Once the first principle is established, questions as to whether this is an intellect, a will, omnipotent, one, omniscient, etc… follow. Demonstrating that it can’t be less than omnipotent and be a first cause, or can’t be less than omniscient and be a first cause… But not before.

Second, can you please point my back to your definition and original questions that concern it? Maybe I can tie the two together better for you.

Yeah, but generally when I talk to anyone about God I’m referring to their deity or a deity, That’s also what I see from other people and what the dictionary states. Generally God is referring to a supreme being or a deity. To me it seems to vague to say God is whatever started the universe. Also that doesn’t always work. For example, some Greek Gods have nothing to do with creating the universe.

 

[Wesrock]

Yeah, but generally when I talk to anyone about God I’m referring to their deity or a deity, That’s also what I see from other people and what the dictionary states. Generally God is referring to a supreme being or a deity. To me it seems to vague to say God is whatever started the universe. Also that doesn’t always work. For example, some Greek Gods have nothing to do with creating the universe.

Well, I think you hit the nail on your head with that last point. We use the same word, but the ancient Hellenistic deities are NOT in the same category, type, tier, or level as what the Abrahamic faiths mean by God. It’s not “my” God, it’s how we understand THE God, the Ultimate Reality, the Unconditioned Reality, the source of all being. The Hellenistic gods, even if they really did exist and were proven to reside on Mt. Olympus are demonstrably creatures themselves, demonstrably caused, precisely because they aren’t the metaphysically simple, first cause, and incomprehensible being that the Abrahamic religions claim is real, even should their personal understanding of Him is different. God is that foundation to reality (and has Intellect and Will), not just a super mighty being who spoke to Moses. (I mean, Christians argue that this Ultimate Reality did speak to Moses, but it’s not “my god vs your god”. There is only one. A better question is why one should believe God revealed Himself in the way Christians claim and not as Muslims do or whether He’s reached out to man at all, but that’s entirely different than whether God exists at all.

 

[tony12356]

Weeds among the wheat.

I would suggest that you continue to expand your philosophical inquiry.

As for Genesis, that’s a complicated topic, but the Catholic Church doesn’t demand fundamentalist literalism in interpreting it. And there are sainted theologians from over a thousand years ago who didn’t take the idea of a seven day creation literally. But the question of your topic is atheism vs theism, not Christianity specifically, no? One could be convinced by the natural theology arguments for God without becoming Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu. The “Okay I’m a theist, why should I be Christian?” is a separate discussion.

And while I do love natural theology I must remember that not all people are persuaded that way. Some are convinced by the history or testimony of the Church, others by a spiritual connection they’ve made.

I should have been more clear. The research for proof that Jesus was the son of God was also what lead me to being an atheist. After being unable to prove Jesus being the son of God, I started looking for evidence that God existed. I continue to read the bible, because I’m still not fully finished. Manly due to school and spent a lot of time researching the history of the bible along with the archaeological evidence. I am planing on reading the quran next.

 

[Wesrock]

I should have been more clear. The research for proof that Jesus was the son of God was also what lead me to being an atheist.

What do you mean by this? All the way to whether Jesus was alive or taught? Or is it more along the lines of, “assuming the books of the Bible are true (in some fashion), is Jesus presented as God? And if he’s presented as God, is he the same as the Father?” Is it Trinitarianism and Jesus’ divinity at issue? Or Jesus in general?

 

[tony12356]

Well, I think you hit the nail on your head with that last point. We use the same word, but the ancient Hellenistic deities are NOT in the same category, type, tier, or level as what the Abrahamic faiths mean by God. It’s not “my” God, it’s how we understand THE God, the Ultimate Reality, the Unconditioned Reality, the source of all being. The Hellenistic gods, even if they really did exist and were proven to reside on Mt. Olympus are demonstrably creatures themselves, demonstrably caused, precisely because they aren’t the metaphysically simple, first cause, and incomprehensible being that the Abrahamic religions claim is real, even should their personal understanding of Him is different. God is that foundation to reality (and has Intellect and Will), not just a super mighty being who spoke to Moses. (I mean, Christians argue that this Ultimate Reality did speak to Moses, but it’s not “my god vs your god”. There is only one. A better question is why one should believe God revealed Himself in the way Christians claim and not as Muslims do or whether He’s reached out to man at all, but that’s entirely different than whether God exists at all.

That’s why I’m using a definition that allows all Gods to fit under one umbrella. It doesn’t matter if its Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, Yahweh, Asherah, Shango, or FSM they are all Gods under this Umbrella.

 

[Wesrock]

That’s why I’m using a definition that allows all Gods to fit under one umbrella. It doesn’t matter if its Vishnu, Thor, Zeus, Yahweh, Asherah, Shango, or FSM they are all Gods under this Umbrella.

I reject that umbrella. It can be argued that reality demands an Ultimate, Unconditioned Reality and that it’s rational to believe in this. You can’t use that type of demonstration to get to what amounts to a creature which only needs possibly to exist.

 

[tony12356]

I reject that umbrella. It can be argued that reality demands an Ultimate, Unconditioned Reality and that it’s rational to believe in this. You can’t use that type of demonstration to get to what amounts to a creature which only needs possibly to exist.

Then we are done here, because you are doing the same thing as I said before.

 

[Wesrock]

Then we are done here, because you are doing the same thing as I said before.

You’re asking if we have somehow empirically detected God. The answer is no. If you wish to discuss Church history, the authenticity of it, and proof of Christ’s life, that would be better suited to the apologetics or sacred scrioture boards. Given that you posted this on the Philosphy board, I understood you to be asking for philosophical arguments regarding the existence of God, and certainly if you’re looking for evidence of God as Christians understand Him, the existence of anything at all is the most convincing and tangible evidence there is. We were simply trying to point you in the direction of why that can be considered as firm evidence.

But if you don’t recognize that God is different than Zeus and think God is just a magical bearded man in the sky, well, there’s definitely no evidence of that, that’s ridiculous, and anyone who believes in that is silly. I certainly don’t believe in anything like that, and neither does the Church.

 

[reggieM]

First it started with rejecting how most churches acted. I couldn’t stand it that these churches kept begging for money from lower and middle class people, but yet they spend it on so much expensive equipment that they didn’t need. I found that just wrong to put pressure on to people, just so you can spend it own a flat screen tv, I also couldn’t stand it that many Christians tried to force their beliefs onto others. Over time I distance myself from people like that. On the other hand, I was always interested in science and as the years continued, I rejected more and more about what genesis said. Finally, around a year ago I was asked the question “why do I believe in what the bible said.” So I learned about basic philosophy and tried to look for evidence that Jesus actually existed and was the son of God. I couldn’t find anything that actually proved it. I started to read the bible more and even prayed multiple times for an answer. I’m still looking for evidence and reading the bible, but I’m not convinced that even God exists.

Thanks for your reply, tony.
I hope you will keep praying as you read the Bible - and also keep a watch for answers to your prayers which may be quiet or smaller than you would otherwise notice.
As for whether Jesus existed, what kind of evidence would prove to you that He did?

 

[tony12356]

Thanks for your reply, tony.
I hope you will keep praying as you read the Bible - and also keep a watch for answers to your prayers which may be quiet or smaller than you would otherwise notice.
As for whether Jesus existed, what kind of evidence would prove to you that He did?

I don’t know, but evidence that the God of Abram exist and multiple eyewitness accounts from outside sources would be a great start. I think that’s as honest as I can get.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t know, but evidence that the God of Abram exist and multiple eyewitness accounts from outside sources would be a great start. I think that’s as honest as I can get.

Ok, but regarding Jesus the vast majority of historians affirm that He did exist. Even if you went against them, you’d have to have some reason why there was a following of Jesus from the very first century and churches that still exist today were from that time.

It’s important to use the same standards also. As it is said, there is far more evidence that Jesus existed than for Julius Caesar. So, you’d have to start questioning the existence of all sorts of historical figures.