Evidence that God Exists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ammonius_Saccus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems that all the recent repsonses come all one theme, that there cannot be suffiecient evidence of God that can be analysised in a critical matter. This brings me back to some questions I posed earlier in the thread (I put them is a slightly different form):

If you take away a critical analysis of the evidence for the actual existence of God aren’t you just going to pick the the logically possible position that you desire to be true? If you are not going to look at the matter critically, don’t you have to say that the atheist, the Muslim, the Mormon, and the Catholic are all equally justified in their beliefs since that are all logically possible and they all have personal experiences to back up their beliefs? Aren’t you endorsing a form of relativism in regard to the positions that individuals should find justified?
 
TOP said:
St. Patrick used the shamrock to help explain the Trinity. Just FYI
Click to expand...
Thank you, Top. I love that example as well. 👍

Ammonius, it seems all you want is for God’s existence to be proved YOUR WAY, rather than all the evidence we gave you. We don’t need this evidence ourselves, as faith is that strong. But we showed you this evidence because you were asking for physical proof of God’s existence. We offered you everything from the Shroud of Turin, all the way to the indestructible tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, even the various healings people receive at Lourdes and other shrines, the exorcisms of evil spirits by our beloved Priests, you name it! We offered you sooo much, yet you’re requesting a narrow range of evidence.

This is not a fair discussion. I see no point to answering your questions. Even if you repeated the Holy Name of Jesus several times each day, you’d probably never believe in every wonderful thing this repeating gives you. But I’d still appreciate it if you tried it for a week. I’d love for your heart to be open, not critical. I’m bowing out now. I’m better at apologetics with more-receptive people.

God bless. 🙂
 
seremina said:
We offered you everything from the Shroud of Turin, all the way to the indestructible tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, even the various healings people receive at Lourdes and other shrines, the exorcisms of evil spirits by our beloved Priests, you name it! We offered you sooo much, yet you’re requesting a narrow range of evidence.

When the Shroud of Turin was dated it was dated to the 1500’s. Sure people have come with explanations for why that date is wrong, but since the Catholic Church will not allow more samples to be tested (including samples from the image) we will probably never get a better test. Until we do the best evidence points to it being a fake.

I don’t know anything about the indestructible tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Can you provide some infomation about it and the evidence that establishes its authencitiy.

There have been 68 so-called miracles at Lourdes out of millions of vistors. And they have all been for things that could get better on their own. We don’t see anybody re-grow a missing lung or hand.

The exorcisms of evil spirits by our beloved Priests. Where is the evidence for this phenomenon? It has the evidence as other pseudo-scientific beliefs.
I’d love for your heart to be open, not critical.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Valke 2

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.

For the same reason, it might be that atheism is only believed, by and large, because we have been taught that it makes sense and should be believed.
 
Ammonius,

You did not read my post. I said I am bowing out. I am worried you are trying to bait me here. Your and my discussion will have to continue in Private Messages, because there is no real discussion here.

I will, however, answer one of your questions.
Do you only have this openess for Catholic beliefs?
Click to expand...
No. I have openness for every religion out there. But that doesn’t mean I believe other religions. My faith in Catholicism is why I am fair and impartial to other religions, even if they do not have the Truth. We are taught that only God may judge, thus I will not judge. I must love you and hate your sins. It takes a lot of faith and work to have that much love for everybody and follow God/Jesus’ teachings.

Again, God bless.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
“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.”
Click to expand...
We do know that Jesus as a historical figure existed. We also know that he was crucified, and whipped.

Let’s keep it simple and stop there. From these givens can we provide sufficient proof that there is a God?

Would any of you be interested in hearing why? If so, let me know, there has been over 1500 posts and this may have been already covered.

I’m watching the Saints and Eagles and I will check back and do the work if anyone is interested.
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
It seems that all the recent repsonses come all one theme, that there cannot be suffiecient evidence of God that can be analysised in a critical matter. This brings me back to some questions I posed earlier in the thread (I put them is a slightly different form):

If you take away a critical analysis of the evidence for the actual existence of God aren’t you just going to pick the the logically possible position that you desire to be true? If you are not going to look at the matter critically, don’t you have to say that the atheist, the Muslim, the Mormon, and the Catholic are all equally justified in their beliefs since that are all logically possible and they all have personal experiences to back up their beliefs? Aren’t you endorsing a form of relativism in regard to the positions that individuals should find justified?
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point of what I said. Our understanding of God is that He demands you approach Him with faith - He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Josh McDowell wrote a book called “Evidence that Demands a Verdict.” He sought to disprove the claims of Christianity, but instead became a Christian as a result of the evidence he gathered. Perhaps some of his writings would answer your question. As for me, I asked God, not believing, whether He existed and I suddenly discovered that I believed - now I have believed for 30 years that there is a God and His name is Jesus. The apostle John wrote that his gospel was written so that you would believe - the Gospels are evidence of God.

Does God exist? Yes. Is there evidence? All around. Do you believe it? No. You demand God fits into your little scientific box and you will believe in Him provided there is enough evidence to be judged critically. However, God is the one who is the judge.

As for why the Christian God is the right one, that would take far more explanation than can be done in one thread.
 
Equus_Pallidus said:
We do know that Jesus as a historical figure existed. We also know that he was crucified, and whipped.

Let’s keep it simple and stop there. From these givens can we provide sufficient proof that there is a God?

Would any of you be interested in hearing why? If so, let me know, there has been over 1500 posts and this may have been already covered.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to hear how from the two simple premises that Jesus existed as historical figure and was crucified and whipped that we can know if there is a God.
 
seremina said:
You did not read my post. I said I am bowing out. I am worried you are trying to bait me here. Your and my discussion will have to continue in Private Messages, because there is no real discussion here.

I do not know how to send Private Messages and I am interested in having an open debate where others can join.

I am not trying to bait anyone. If you go back and look through the thread you will see that I have tried not be disrespectful to anyone.
Click to expand...
 
Ammonius,

I’m afraid you’ll have to concede- the New Orleans Saints finally won a playoff game.

Case closed.
 
Cubs win another ?? World Series…

I must’ve missed something. I’m too busy evidently.

But I must correct myself- the Saints won a playoff game in 2000

BUT

If they win the NFC Championship and make it to the promised land of the Super Bowl after 40 years (really) of “wandering in the desert,” then you’ll affirm the parallel with the “forty” in the OT (Jews wandering in the desert) and NT (Jesus in the wilderness) and then, and then, that will be proof positve…

Seriously though, I enjoy your inquiry. Have you heard of Anthony Flew?
 
I can’t show you proof, no one on this forum can show you proof. Only God can give that to you. Only by that grace can this be given to you. The truth is in the Spirit of Truth, not the physical. God didnt come from here, He came from His Kingdom. If you have a tiny ounce of faith in Him and search Him by calling on His name with thoughtfulness and open to Him you may know and hear His voice and know the truth.

This sums it all up.

Corinthians 1-2(13-16) “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment. For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him” But we have the mind of Christ.”

What would you to say if you saw the things Jesus did when He was here and heard His words? Would that be proof to you?
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
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?
Click to expand...

My experience is the opposite - reason provides so many reasons against believing in God, that faith is the only basis left for doing so.​

The Church is a reason for atheism, as is human nature. As for evidence for God - it’s worthless, because it is impossible to know things directly - for it is indirect; they can be known only indirectly, by the concepts we form about them. A thousand billion centuries would not be enough for us to separate our conceptions of a cat, from an actual cat - essences are always hidden by their accidents, as much as they revealed by them.

And if we cannot know a cat directly, by the evidence of its accidents, etc., how can we know the God Who (unlike all the sensible creation) is incorporeal, & excellent in every perfection yet absolutely simple ? Faith is all that we have. Only faith is adequate, because only faith is untainted by creatureliness or by the senses or by being from this fallen & imperfect world. Only faith has the breadth & depth & height to include all other possible supposed ways to know God in it - it includes them all; none of them includes all, let alone faith. They can no more do so, than the creature can exhaust the Creator. But in having faith, we have access to all things that are not faith, for faith unites us with God Himself, on His terms, & not on ours.

Who that has faith needs anything so worthless & out of place as evidence ? No one needs a torch in broad daylight - & faith makes a paltry thing like evidence equally irrelevant. To have the gall to offer evidence of what someone knows already by faith is not helpful - it shows only that that the offerer has not crossed the pons asinorum. Hardly anything is more revolting than trying to prove Christianity is true. :mad: :mad: :mad: 😦 :eek:
 
temporarilyqual said:
Cubs win another ?? World Series…
Click to expand...
They won their last one in 1908. They have two total.
Seriously though, I enjoy your inquiry. Have you heard of Anthony Flew?
Click to expand...
Yes, I have a copy of his dictionary of A Dictionary of Philosophy. Do you want to discuss his views of deism? I have to admit I quite confused as to what his evidence is. He stated:

“My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.”

He has since retracted this statement and has not given any further evidence, but remains a deist. I find this odd since he claims to still hold an evidentialist approach. But I haven’t really followed him too closely so maybe he has presented new evidence.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
Only faith has the breadth & depth & height to include all other possible supposed ways to know God in it - it includes them all; none of them includes all, let alone faith. They can no more do so, than the creature can exhaust the Creator. But in having faith, we have access to all things that are not faith, for faith unites us with God Himself, on His terms, & not on ours.
Click to expand...
How do you judge one faith belief against another? How do you judge the faith beliefs of a Muslim against a Catholic? Or against an atheist?

In fact, how do you judge a faith belief at all? What can you do to test that the belief is actually true?
 
Ammonius_Saccus said:
How do you judge one faith belief against another? How do you judge the faith beliefs of a Muslim against a Catholic? Or against an atheist?

In fact, how do you judge a faith belief at all? What can you do to test that the belief is actually true?
Click to expand...
If you know the truth, you don’t have to. It would be impossible to unless by the help of God, which is possible.
 
Disciple87 said:
So that still wouldn’t be proof that God existed?
Click to expand...
The problem I have is with the word proof. If are just using the word proof in the everyday sort of way I would say that it is proof. But absolute proof is for mathematics or logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top