Evidence that God Exists

[TOP]

AS, do you believe in God, a creater or higher power… Yes or No? Tim

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

AS, do you believe in God, a creater or higher power… Yes or No? Tim

Have you read through the thread? I have answered more than once. More than twice even.

Once again:

“The only honest answer to the question of God is that we do not know, but there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief in God.”

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I’m not well- schooled in philosophy, but as to Ammonius’ original query, the “ontologic argument” for God’s existence was offered by St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church, in the 11th century.

Wow. I went back and re-read my OP and it does not make sense. I think that is the result of me composing the question more than once and jsut getting things mixed up and the that I wrote it really late at night. I think the direction of the thread has corrected my sloppy composition, but I can re-write if there is confussion.

Basically, I was looking for evidence that God actually exists not just logical arguments that show that the possiibility that God exists. I already accept the possibility that God exists.

I would accept a logical argument that shows that God must exist, so long as the premises can be justified with evidence.

 

[TOP]

Have you read through the thread? I have answered more than once. More than twice even.

Once again:

“The only honest answer to the question of God is that we do not know, but there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief in God.”

I may be simple ,but you are not saying yes or no. yes or no?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I may be simple ,but you are not saying yes or no. yes or no?

I am saying that it is possible that God exists, but there is not enough evidence to jusitify the belief that God exists.

 

[TOP]

You don’t know yet then?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

You don’t know yet then?

I don’t think anybody really does or they would just present the evidence that God does actually exist instead of making logical arguments about the possibility or making appeals to emotion or referring to “miracles” that have other (more logical) explanations.

Do you have evidence for the actual existence of God?

 

[cheddarsox]

I’ve been following the discussion and have a questions. When you are referring to “God” as in…doesn God exist. Are you only referring to the Christian God? or does anything that fills the role of God count?

cheddar

 

[Valke2]

You can’t say there isn’t enough evidence to prove taht God exists. YOu can only say there isn’t enough evidence to prove to you that God exists.

I could say things like “existence proves God”, but such statements are useless. If I live in a world that is always glowing in light, would we even think of the possibility that darkness exists? Only when I experience darkness can I believe it exists.

 

[TOP]

I don’t think anybody really does or they would just present the evidence that God does actually exist instead of making logical arguments about the possibility or making appeals to emotion or referring to “miracles” that have other (more logical) explanations.

Do you have evidence for the actual existence of God?

I’ve been looking for answers the past 3 years. But , I’m asking how and why. I have no evidence other then what you have rejected already. I only have my life and my family’s testimony of the effects. AS , have you read the bible yet? Seems like a good place to start looking for answers. Tim

 

[AnthonyM2]

As long as we live in this fallen world the answers will never be clear to us until the end of either our own individual lives or of the world when all will be revealed. Until then we need faith but it can still be (and has to be) a reasoned faith. As C.S. Lewis said something to the effect that we are in “enemy territory” while we live under the ruler of this world.

The book of Hebrews, chapter 11 gives a good explanation of faith also.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Ammonius Saccus

“The only honest answer to the question of God is that we do not know, but there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief in God.”

If you read your own statement carefully, you will eventually see that it is logically indefensible.

“Sufficient evidence” should not be the standard by which we believe in God, because there will never be enough “sufficient evidence” for the persdon **who does not want to believe in God. **God could come to earth and perform miracles. He could preach the most sublime truths. He could die and rise from the dead. This would still not be “sufficient evidence” for those who do not want to believe.

Only by opening our hearts and our minds do we come to know God. The agnostic and the atheist have closed their hearts and minds to God. God stands knocking at the door to their hearts, but the door can only be opened from within. God cannot force His way in. Nor can He sneak in by the back door called Sufficient Evidence.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I don’t think anybody really does or they would just present the evidence that God does actually exist instead of making logical arguments about the possibility…

You know that God is Spirit.
Are you asking for material proof of a spirit.
The proof you are seeking must also be a spiritual proof.
However, if you beforehand reject the spiritual, your question is made false.
My advice to you, for what its worth, is this: As you are both a spiritual and material creature, and God is a spiritual being - you would have to approach Him yourself - in person - in order to experience proof of His spiritual reality.
No-one else can really do this for you.
or making appeals to emotion or referring to “miracles” that have other (more logical) explanations.

I wish to hear your other explanation for the Shroud.
Do you have evidence for the actual existence of God?

 

[Valke2]

In defense of the atheist:

If we were to all fall asleep and have our memories wiped, we would wake up and look at our scriptures, and probably shake our heads in disbelief.

 

[temporarilyqual]

*I don’t think anybody really does or they would just present the evidence that God does actually exist instead of making logical arguments about the possibility or making appeals to emotion or referring to “miracles” that have other (more logical) explanations.

Do you have evidence for the actual existence of God?*

It appears that your approach to the question is philosophically positivistic (after Comte, et al). That is, the only things that are actually true and existent are those things that can be scientifically demonstrated, for example touched, measured, etc. By that measure, we are going to have a very tough task proving God’s existence to your satisfaction.

But by that positivistic yardstick, one could also propose that such things as “idea”, “justice”, “wisdom”, “love”, etc. do not exist either.

Christian believers, and possibly all the various religious believers who hold that there is a God, ultimately depend on Faith as the final bridge to God- although Reason can take one a long way down the road towards God, as has been amply demonstrated within and without the Christian paradigm.

Finally, I guess it’s fair to say that you do not accept the witness of the apostles and that first generation of Christian disciples and martyrs who presumably eye-witnessed Jesus Christ, who we believe was the God incarnate (and there’s another mystery for you).

Thank you for the respectful tone of your inquiry and rebuttals, BTW

 

[seremina]

That does not explain the Trinity. To explain the Trinity each petal would have to be the entire flower at all times. In the doctrine of the Trinity each person is not a part of God, each part is wholly God. You would also have to have the Flower = Petal 2 and The Flower = Petal 3 but not have Petal 2 = Petal 3.*

*The Flower = God the Father
Petal 2 = Jesus
Petal 3 = The Holy Spirit

You are reading something into the description I gave. I never said the 3 parts are separate. I used the flower analogy as a beautiful explanation of what the Trinity is.

I’m surprised you didn’t just think on what I wrote. I feel all you did was analyse it and then criticised it. I wasn’t asking for corrections of any kind. I was trying to explain something to you. I’m noticing an unfair pattern in all our posts to you. You analyse it and pick it apart rather than give it any consideration, and add “corrections” as you see fit.

I’ll have to repeat myself. Faith is not science. So please listen to what we explain and stop correcting the poo out of it! You’re not adding anything to your learning by doing this. You’re being your own stumbling block. At this rate, I feel the only way to make this pattern stop is to smash a blackboard slate on your head. However, that is only my anger talking. I would not actually do this. So I’ll do something better. I’ll pray for you.

 

[TOP]

You are reading something into the description I gave. I never said the 3 parts are separate. I used the flower analogy as a beautiful explanation of what the Trinity is.

St. Patrick used the shamrock to help explain the Trinity. Just FYI

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Valke 2

If we were to all fall asleep and have our memories wiped, we would wake up and look at our scriptures, and probably shake our heads in disbelief.

I don’t follow your reasoning. If our memories were erased, that would include the memories of the atheists. Some of those memories would include a conditioned reflex of disbelief. It is therefore possible that the atheist might be **more **open-minded to the idea of God after losing his past prejudice against God. If those of us who were not atheists were to lose our memories, the fresh consciousness of what is said in the Sciptures would certainly be startling, but not unbelievable, since included in our loss of memories we would have lost the memory of atheism which had taunted the true believers with doubts and skepticism.

Moreover, the fact that many atheists have grown up doubting religion, and later have overcome those doubts to become religious in turn, suggests that a conditioned reflex to be religious is not the only reason why people become religious. Rather, it suggests that religion is inherently human … though perhaps some religions are more human than others.

 

[Valke2]

Valke 2

If we were to all fall asleep and have our memories wiped, we would wake up and look at our scriptures, and probably shake our heads in disbelief.

I don’t follow your reasoning.

My reasoning is that scripture only makes sense and is believed by us, by and large, because we have been taught that it makes sense and should be believed.

 

[Truthstalker]

I don’t think anybody really does or they would just present the evidence that God does actually exist instead of making logical arguments about the possibility or making appeals to emotion or referring to “miracles” that have other (more logical) explanations.

Do you have evidence for the actual existence of God?

I wonder if this is a statement that you are willing to approach God, or even admit His existence, only via your own approach and on your own terms. He must fit within the scientific method. He must be x, y and z. Should He not perform, or be bound by your definition, He is therefore not God.

The thing is, that God could demand we believe in Him on His terms, not ours and accept His proof for Who He Is, not our own, and live by what He says, not by what we think is right.

Follow me in this: let’s say there is a being who is greater than all other beings: that is, the supreme being. Let’s say there was a first cause, and there’s a logical proof out there that the supreme being and the first cause are the same. Well, I think you will say, that’s not necessarily God. But if He communicated to us, He might say that He is both.

Proof that God exists? Creation. Proof that He loves man? The idea that the Church, despite everything it has done to destroy itself, still survives, is a powerful evidence that something beyond human energy is behind it, something that that Church says is God.

You request evidence that God exists. Please consider that the tables may be turned, and it may be, as it was in the book of Job, that the real inquirer is God, and He is less satisfied with your answers than you are with all the people attempting to answer your simple question. What will you do when He starts asking you questions? Reflect for a minute, and see if within yourself you evidence that God may be moving - quietly, softly, but with an indication that He exists. Augustine argued that we all have a hunger that only can be met by God. He may have argued that that was an evidence of God.

Consider also the existence of intelligence, of mind. In the world you observe around you there is chaos and entropy, a lack of order and a tendency to disorder. Is not our ability to reason and be aware of ourselves and each other something remarkable? Is not our ability to ponder something that is more than is necessary for survival, that transcends the idea of an irrational and disordered reality to one in which reason functions, something in itself to ponder? The existence of reason, too, is an evidence of the existence of God.

In Catholicism you will find that two things are necessary for an approach to God: faith and reason. The argument is that to approach God without one or the other is a mistake. So the argument is that you err in attempting to determine His existence solely by reason. Faith is required. Someone said we believe in order to understand - we do not understand in order to believe.