Evidence that God Exists

[Resurrexit]

For that to work all H2O everywhere would have to Ice, Water, and Vapour at the same time. We also have to say that Ice = Water and Ice = Vapour, but Water does not = Vapour.

That is not true of water. And it is illogical. If it was really that simple, why would the Catholic Church call it a mystery?

Vapour = H20
Water = H20
Ice = H20

But there is only one H20. There is 3 and 1 at the same time. Of course this is not a thorough or perfect way to explain it, (and there are no doubt some scientific holes in this analogy). but it is one of the better ones.

Yes it is a mystery, but that’s not just a cover-up for something that doesn’t make sense. We can never understand the fulness of this truth, but it doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence to see that this is not contradictory,

I’m not saying you have to believe it, but it is not illogical or contrary to reason in any way.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t know what the origin of everything is. That is just not something that is known yet. But to call that because I do not know the origin of everything somehow makes Christianity more likely does not follow.

You say that the origin of everything is not known yet, but most people around the world would say that the answer is known. So at most your answer is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

But what is more interesting is that apparently no answer which has ever entered the human mind to the question of “the origin of everything” has met your standards of evidence. So it is not just that the answer “God” does not meet your standards, but that nothing meets your standards. What then are those standards? What will it take for any answer to this question to convince you?

In all seriousness and charity, why is your position any more than just a general contrariness, a stubborn holding to standards which no human explanation can meet?

To say that you don’t know the right answer, but that you know all the answers offered are wrong, is a position that I (and others, I imagine) find hard to respond to.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Vapour = H20
Water = H20
Ice = H20

But there is only one H20. There is 3 and 1 at the same time. Of course this is not a thorough or perfect way to explain it, (and there are no doubt some scientific holes in this analogy). but it is one of the better ones.

Yes it is a mystery, but that’s not just a cover-up for something that doesn’t make sense. We can never understand the fulness of this truth, but it doesn’t take a great deal of intelligence to see that this is not contradictory,

I’m not saying you have to believe it, but it is not illogical or contrary to reason in any way.

And what about its violation of transitive relation?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

You say that the origin of everything is not known yet, but most people around the world would say that the answer is known. So at most your answer is an opinion, not a statement of fact.

And what is the evidence that they can present to support the position that it is known.

But what is more interesting is that apparently no answer which has ever entered the human mind to the question of “the origin of everything” has met your standards of evidence. So it is not just that the answer “God” does not meet your standards, but that nothing meets your standards. What then are those standards? What will it take for any answer to this question to convince you?

In all seriousness and charity, why is your position any more than just a general contrariness, a stubborn holding to standards which no human explanation can meet?

To say that you don’t know the right answer, but that you know all the answers offered are wrong, is a position that I (and others, I imagine) find hard to respond to.

My only position is that when people make claims about things they should back up their position with evidence or there is no reason to justify these beliefs.

We don’t believe that physical objects are made up of atoms because we think it is a nice idea. We believe this because there is powerful evidence to believe this. It also made no difference when people believed physical objects were made up of things other than atoms. They still were. It makes no difference what people think they were made up of.*

• I do leave open the slight possibility that the atomic theory might be disproven. Then it would be untrue and it always would have been untrue.

 

[wcknight]

There can be no discusion with anyone who simply ignores or discounts all the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses and a mountain of proof. All AS is doing is ignoring the Truth and not in a very intelligent way.

There have been hundreds of folks who have experienced the same visions relating to Catholic beliefs. They all indicate no only the existence of God, but the existence of God according to Catholic theology.

His premise that visions are random and arbitrary just doesn’t hold water.

Add to that the literally thousands of miracles documented by the medical community in relation to the lives of various saints and it boggles the mind that someone can still question the veracity of the Chruch’s claims. Witness Padre Pio, St. Catherine of Sienna and St Anthony., just to name a few among many others. Each was associated with a number of miracles, including raising the dead, stopping a falling a man in mid air, various healings, bi- locating and all profess the Catholic belief of Jesus Christ crucified.

These are not unrelated miracles, contradictory opinions or fairy tales. IF all the evidence were presented in a court of law, not only would the jury have to conclude that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt but they would have to conclude that God exists exactly as the Church teaches without ANY doubt whatsoever.

There is not just one Eucharistic miracle but several, all with physical evidence and all with eye witnesses. AS should get a few books on these as well as one on the cloak of St Juan Diego. These things have been scientifically examined and the results are out there for anyone to see.

To demand that God be explained logically, physically, naturally, makes no sense, God is spiritual. He transcends the logical and the physical. The fact that He allows His saints control over the natural proves that He is indeed SUPERnatural.

Miracles are precisely how God proves to us that He exists, to say that miracles can not be used as evidence is just plain stupid.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

There can be no discusion with anyone who simply ignores or discounts all the testimony of hundreds of eye witnesses and a mountain of proof. All AS is doing is ignoring the Truth and not in a very intelligent way.

There have been hundreds of folks who have experienced the same visions relating to Catholic beliefs. They all indicate no only the existence of God, but the existence of God according to Catholic theology.

What about all the people that had Muslim experiences? Or Buddhist experiences? Or Atheist experiences?

His premise that visions are random and arbitrary just doesn’t hold water.

When did I say they are random or arbitrary?

Add to that the literally thousands of miracles documented by the medical community in relation to the lives of various saints and it boggles the mind that someone can still question the veracity of the Chruch’s claims. Witness Padre Pio, St. Catherine of Sienna and St Anthony., just to name a few among many others. Each was associated with a number of miracles, including raising the dead, stopping a falling a man in mid air, various healings, bi- locating and all profess the Catholic belief of Jesus Christ crucified.

These are not unrelated miracles, contradictory opinions or fairy tales. IF all the evidence were presented in a court of law, not only would the jury have to conclude that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt but they would have to conclude that God exists exactly as the Church teaches without ANY doubt whatsoever.

There is not just one Eucharistic miracle but several, all with physical evidence and all with eye witnesses. AS should get a few books on these as well as one on the cloak of St Juan Diego. These things have been scientifically examined and the results are out there for anyone to see.

To demand that God be explained logically, physically, naturally, makes no sense, God is spiritual. He transcends the logical and the physical. The fact that He allows His saints control over the natural proves that He is indeed SUPERnatural.

Miracles are precisely how God proves to us that He exists, to say that miracles can not be used as evidence is just plain stupid.

I admit I have not examined every miracle claim, but all the ones that people have told me to look at had other (more likely) logical explanations.

 

[water]

No. That is why I have said:

“[O]nce you bring in critical analysis the only reasonable position is that we do not know if there is God and that we do not have evidence to justify the belief in the actual existence of God (much less a specific God).”

Ah huh! at least you can’t say there is no God. Therefore, my friend, be open-minded and listen to the testimonies of your fellow members about their beliefs. You’ll soon find the true God in your heart.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Ammonius Saccus:

… Or Atheist experiences? …

Is nothing a real experience.

If you are sort of interested in mysteries then why not study the Shroud of Turin. It is very well documented, with loads of scientific data, (real evidence of something), for you to get stuck into.
The second to last batch of scientists to examine it concluded: [para] ‘…maybe the pixies of the black forest made it, but we-don’t-know-how.’
These guys were, some of them, from NASA.

 

[VociMike]

And what is the evidence that they can present to support the position that it is known.

Well, some of it has been presented here, and you have rejected it. More fundamentally, you have not told us what you would consider to be convincing evidence.

My only position is that when people make claims about things they should back up their position with evidence or there is no reason to justify these beliefs.

You seem to be saying that disbelief is the only legitimate fall-back position. But this is incorrect, because there is no such thing as disbelief. Disbelief in God simply means (unless one is a mental lump of mud) belief in something else. For we all accept that we exist, and that the universe exists, and since we are more than animals we do and should ponder these facts. If you want to discuss with us the belief in God, you should also put your cards on the table and tell us what is more plausible than belief in God, to explain everything that belief in God is said to explain. That is only reasonable.

We don’t believe that physical objects are made up of atoms because we think it is a nice idea. We believe this because there is powerful evidence to believe this. It also made no difference when people believed physical objects were made up of things other than atoms. They still were. It makes no difference what people think they were made up of.*

• I do leave open the slight possibility that the atomic theory might be disproven. Then it would be untrue and it always would have been untrue.

But people didn’t go around saying “I don’t believe in atoms, but I have no alternative to explain the things that the concept of atoms explain.” They offered alternatives, and by examining the alternatives, the one best corresponding to reality as we understand it was chosen. So offer your alternatives that would better explain everything that “God” explains.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Well, some of it has been presented here, and you have rejected it. More fundamentally, you have not told us what you would consider to be convincing evidence.

You seem to be saying that disbelief is the only legitimate fall-back position. But this is incorrect, because there is no such thing as disbelief. Disbelief in God simply means (unless one is a mental lump of mud) belief in something else. For we all accept that we exist, and that the universe exists, and since we are more than animals we do and should ponder these facts. If you want to discuss with us the belief in God, you should also put your cards on the table and tell us what is more plausible than belief in God, to explain everything that belief in God is said to explain. That is only reasonable.

I am not advocating any the belief in something else because I do not have the evidence to support such a position. If this a different time and someone claimed that all matter was made up of Earth, Wind, and Fire it would not make the belief that matter was made up of Earth, Wind, Fire true if I could not supply an alternative belief that could be justified with evidence. The matter would still have been made up of atoms even if that belief could not be justified at the time.

I also would not have known what evidence to say I would to see presented to establish either the Earth, Wind, and Fire Theory or the Atomic Theory. But since the Atomic Theory has evidence to back it today up people can just present it. They don’t have to ask what type of evidence I would accept. They also do not rely of relativist theories of the Truth to back up their claims.

The only evidence that has been presented is personal experiences (of which there are many conflicting experiences) and claims about events and objects (many of dubious credibility) that science cannot explain.

Where is the positive evidence for the existence of God?

But people didn’t go around saying “I don’t believe in atoms, but I have no alternative to explain the things that the concept of atoms explain.” They offered alternatives, and by examining the alternatives, the one best corresponding to reality as we understand it was chosen. So offer your alternatives that would better explain everything that “God” explains.

Again, I am not advocating for a belief in something else. I am asking for the evidence to justify the belief in God. Or are you arguing for the position that a belief is justified, if no alternative is presented, even if there is not positive evidence to justify the belief?

 

[VociMike]

Again, I am not advocating for a belief in something else. I am asking for the evidence to justify the belief in God. Or are you arguing for the position that a belief is justified, if no alternative is presented, even if there is not positive evidence to justify the belief?

I am arguing that you have given us no indication of what kind of evidence you would accept. In fact, you give us no indication of what kind of evidence you have accepted for whatever you believe is a better explanation than God. I would hope that you, as a thinking person, would have such a better explanation, even though you will not or cannot articulate it.

But you ask for my evidence of God. My answer is that everything that exists is evidence of God. Now, if you reject that (as I know you will) then what is it that everything is evidence of, rather than God? I offer everything as my evidence. If you reject my explanation of this evidence, then give us your own explanation. You cannot reject my evidence without proposing an alternative, or else you are simply engaged in fruitless nay-saying.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I am arguing that you have given us no indication of what kind of evidence you would accept. In fact, you give us no indication of what kind of evidence you have accepted for whatever you believe is a better explanation than God. I would hope that you, as a thinking person, would have such a better explanation, even though you will not or cannot articulate it.

Again, I am not advocating for an alternative. Nor have I said I have a better explanation. Any explanation I offered be as equally justified as the belief that God did it. I am saying we do have not have enough evidence to support the belief that God created the universe or that the universe has always existed or some other alternative. It is still a mystery at this point. We need to gather further evidence.

The only evidence presented so far has been personal experience (which is in conflict) and soem claims about events many of which are of dubious credibility.

But you ask for my evidence of God. My answer is that everything that exists is evidence of God. Now, if you reject that (as I know you will) then what is it that everything is evidence of, rather than God? I offer everything as my evidence. If you reject my explanation of this evidence, then give us your own explanation. You cannot reject my evidence without proposing an alternative, or else you are simply engaged in fruitless nay-saying.

But how is that evidence for God? What positive evidence do have that God is the answer to the mystery of where the universe came from? The fact there is a universe is here is not in debate. We both agree the universe is here. But how is that evidence God created the universe? How do you know the universe has not always existed? Or that some other alternative answer does not explain the universe?

Further, even if we were to accept this as evidence of a Creator (which I do not), how is that evidence for a specific God? Wouldn’t all creation stories be equally justified? How can you say that the Hindus are wrong the Catholics are right? Or that people that believe that the universe has existed are wrong and Catholics are right? No side in this argument has the evidence to justify their beliefs.

There is an answer the question of the universe, but we do not have the evidence yet to answer it. We may never have the evidence.

I do not have an explanation for the universe. It is a mystery. But you deny that it is mystery and claim to know the answer is God. What is the evidence you have that God created the universe?

 

[VociMike]

Again, I am not advocating for an alternative. Nor have I said I have a better explanation. Any explanation I offered be as equally justified as the belief that God did it.

So offer one and let’s see if your assertion holds up.

But how is that evidence for God? What positive evidence do have that God is the answer to the mystery of where the universe came from? The fact there is a universe is here is not in debate. We both agree the universe is here. But how is that evidence God created the universe? How do you know the universe has not always existed? Or that some other alternative answer does not explain the universe?

Like what kind of alternative answer? Even if the universe always existed, that does not explain everything about everything. That only eliminates (or appears to eliminate) the need for a beginning.

Further, even if we were to accept this as evidence of a Creator (which I do not), how is that evidence for a specific God? Wouldn’t all creation stories be equally justified?

That’s a question worth exploring, but let’s proceed one step at a time. BTW, the author and convert to Christianity C.S. Lewis travelled a path from unbelief to belief in God and then to belief in the Christian God. I think he felt that the first step was at least as life-altering as the second. Read his “Surprised by Joy” for a fascinating autobiographical telling of this journey.

There is an answer the question of the universe, but we do not have the evidence yet to answer it. We may never have the evidence.

I do not have an explanation for the universe. It is a mystery. But you deny that it is mystery and claim to know the answer is God. What is the evidence you have that God created the universe?

Ah, you say it is a mystery, and then you suggest that you understand the mystery enough to reject one answer to the mystery. What do you know about the mystery that allows you to reject God as the answer to the mystery?

Just to choose an arbitrary starting point, I offer Occam’s Razor. God is the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts, therefore God should be accepted as explanation in preference to all others.

BTW, attitudes do not often come across well in type, but I wanted you to know that I have absolutely no antagonism towards you or your disbelief. I was once an unbeliever (that sounds so Muslim, but it’s what I was) as well as being then and now an engineer with an appreciation of the physical sciences. So I understand your mindset rather well and I don’t fault you for it.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

So offer one and let’s see if your assertion holds up.

I do not have enough evidence to support a justified belief in an alternative. That is why I said it is a mystery.

Ah, you say it is a mystery, and then you suggest that you understand the mystery enough to reject one answer to the mystery. What do you know about the mystery that allows you to reject God as the answer to the mystery?

When did I ever reject that God could be the answer? My position is that belief in God is not justified. I have not rejected the possibility. God may exist. However, we do not have the evidence to justify this belief.

Just to choose an arbitrary starting point, I offer Occam’s Razor. God is the simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts, therefore God should be accepted as explanation in preference to all others.

Saying that simplest explanation is the answer that should be accepted is a common misstatement of Occam’ Razor. What it really says is entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. When you correctly state the razor you can see that it can cut against God as well as for God.

BTW, attitudes do not often come across well in type, but I wanted you to know that I have absolutely no antagonism towards you or your disbelief. I was once an unbeliever (that sounds so Muslim, but it’s what I was) as well as being then and now an engineer with an appreciation of the physical sciences. So I understand your mindset rather well and I don’t fault you for it.

Thanks. I hope don’t some across as rude or dismissive. I am really interested in an honest debate. But it seems to me that religious believers set up special modes of justifying beliefs in regard to God that they do not accept in any other matters.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I am a great, great sinner.

My wife loves me.

She can only love be because God placed His love in her heart.

Therefore God exists.

Furthermore, my mother and father love me. My children love me.

I am a great, great, great, great sinner.

Therefore God exists.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

Creation is beautiful.

Therefore God exists.

 

[VociMike]

When did I ever reject that God could be the answer? My position is that belief in God is not justified. I have not rejected the possibility. God may exist. However, we do not have the evidence to justify this belief.

Fair enough. What form and amount of evidence do you require, and what makes these requirements the correct ones?

Saying that simplest explanation is the answer that should be accepted is a common misstatement of Occam’ Razor. What it really says is entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. When you correctly state the razor you can see that it can cut against God as well as for God.

Fine, I was just using verbal shorthand. It makes no difference to my assertion. One God is fewer entities than any other answer, except for answers that also require only one entity. Do you know of other answers that require only one entity? If so, let’s compare.

Thanks. I hope don’t some across as rude or dismissive. I am really interested in an honest debate. But it seems to me that religious believers set up special modes of justifying beliefs in regard to God that they do not accept in any other matters.

This is only because the answer, no matter what it is, is of a different nature than any other matters. The fact that you have no alternative answer, and do not even suggest how such an answer might be sought, shows I think that you recognize the fundamental difference just as much as we do.

Whatever answer one offers as an explanation of everything, will have some of the attributes of God. Any answer will require something (or someone) somehow larger, greater, more, than the entire world. The only question is, what will this larger, greater, more look like? The problem is, every other answer is a form of god, but a rather pathetic god compared to the actual, revealed God. Every other answer is just, well, lame.

 

[VociMike]

Creation is beautiful.

And we are able to know it is beautiful.

Therefore God exists.

Yep.

 

[Truthstalker]

Is there ontological evidence for God’s existence or only logical proofs for God’s existence? Is there evidence for God’s existence that is sufficient to jusitify belief in God? Is it sufficient to justify belief in the existence of a particular God?

Isn’t the old fall back on faith just an excuse to believe whatever a person wants since it does not require evidence?

First, prove you exist, and then we can talk.

 

[freesoulhope]

I do not have an explanation for the universe. It is a mystery. But you deny that it is mystery and claim to know the answer is God. What is the evidence you have that God created the universe?

Is not knowing, a justification for not believing? Some who desire it, would say yes. If you don’t believe in God, then you must be some sort of atheist. Your belief is atheist, correct?

You have no evidence for the non-existence of God, yet amazingly you have chosen not to believe in God and to ignore any calling to having faith in God, and you have faith in the non-existence of God without a shred of evidence to support it! woooow!

Science cannot support atheism directly or indirectly. Science has dug up things that may cause one to doubt a religious story perhaps when that specific story is posed as “fact” when clearly science proves otherwise. But science does not justify the idea or prove that God, Super-Nature, Eternal Monarch, Creator; call God what you wish (nothing rude!) does not exist, and neither does it in anyway reinforce any evidence to support a reality that is blind dumb and stupid with out any intelligent cause to its being what’s-so-ever. Yet, according to atheists or sceptical non-believers, under certain conditions when those electrons and protons get jiggy with it ( popping out of no-where with all the hallmarks of a programmer/ designer), and those unconscious undesireing “Atoms” are arranged in to a certain pattern, life and evolution occurs. This life continues through out the ages manifesting creatures with a meaningless instinctual need or desire to replicate, eventually giving birth to Intelligent people who can talk through a computer to somebody on the other side of the world( By the way, i believe in evolution. Science has proven it, simply because "nature " is fully within its grasp and criteria of discovery and examination). Now is Atheism logical? Because to me, something more miraculous then Jesus dying on the cross is happening here. A world that is atheist in origin is a miracle without a miracle-worker!!! Yet you would rather believe in this? With no evidence!!!

Conclusion: It is reasonable to “Believe” In God. It is unreasonable and self deceiving to believe in a universe that has no meaningful and intelligible cause, yet shows signs of intelligence no matter what that may be.

You could say that its an illusion, like are freind Richard Darwkins, but I would say that was wishful thinking since I see nothing in support of a world that is fundamentally atheist(a world with no creator) in origin and nature (for lack of a better word). And if reasonable signs of a creator is an illusion, then i can say the same about all the scientific discoverys that contradict the bible. So there!

Is any one religion truly representative of the creator? (I think this is what your asking) I think you should open another thread. But before you do, you must understand that religion is question best dealt with in a philosophical sense. It can not be answered through science since it does not have the ability to fully deal with such an answer. So in this case, science is void, my friend.

God bless and peace.