For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[SpiritusSanctus]

The point is that even in the absence of a reasonable explanation – like mass hysteria, some atmospheric condition limited to that area producing an optical illusion, etc. – an event like that would still be “something weird that we don’t have an explanation for.”

Weird stuff that we don’t have an explanation for isn’t evidence for random supernatural claims.

I don’t have an explanation for where my socks go when they get lost – is that evidence that sock-stealing gnomes exist and are taking my socks? Is this some “fact” that I ought to accept even though I can’t “prove” it, simply because I can’t come up with a reasonable explanation?

You’re trying to take a logical approach by using science to conclude that it isn’t logical God exists. But it isn’t logical to say He doesn’t when He has already proven He does. I can assure you that the Miracle of the Sun was no illusion. If you think it was, how about explaining Mary appearing to those three children telling them she would perform a miracle so that all would believe them. Even athiests saw the miracle and converted to Catholicism. You can keep trying to come up with a “scientific” explanation for all this stuff, but eventually you’re going to get to a point when you just can’t explain something but accept it. It’s only a matter of time before you realize that and accept that God does indeed exist.

 

[humble_catholic]

I remember reading somewhere that someone posted an example from Dinesh Dsouzas book called life after death. I think this was where he investigated a case where a woman was pronounced dead at the hospital but was brought back. When she awokened she told about her experience of floating up and looking down at her body. She also asked the doctor and hospital staff why there was a doll on the roof of the hospital. When they went to the roof to check there was the exact same doll that she decribed for them.

I guess an Atheist would want repeatable testing for this to be true, plus they would probably call her a liar anyway. Like we have been saying, there are things in this world that go beyond the proof testing of science. Police investigators even use psychics as part of their investigations at times even though its not an empirically consistently proven science.

God is so way beyond our understanding thats impossible for the human mind to completely understand his fullness. If you want reason try studying the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection.

My grandfather was about to be buried in the ground on some remote part of the egyptian beach by 7 men who wanted him dead. He was a DEAD MAN. This was when Saint Joseph himself appeared exactly as my grandfathers aunt described him and descended on the beach at superhuman speed. All 7 men dropped their things and ran as fast as they could. Try to tell me that science could explain this. When My aunt told my grandfather 2 days before that she was told in a dream vision that Saint Joseph would save her. Can you guys empirically test this. This is why I have to chuckle when I hear someone say that if they havent seenbefore and cant test it in a lab then they wont believe it. Science isnt the be all that ends all. Science will never be able to explain the soul or love.

 

[itinerant1]

The point is that even in the absence of a reasonable explanation – like mass hysteria, some atmospheric condition limited to that area producing an optical illusion, etc. – an event like that would still be “something weird that we don’t have an explanation for.”

Weird stuff that we don’t have an explanation for isn’t evidence for random supernatural claims.

I don’t have an explanation for where my socks go when they get lost – is that evidence that sock-stealing gnomes exist and are taking my socks? Is this some “fact” that I ought to accept even though I can’t “prove” it, simply because I can’t come up with a reasonable explanation?

The significant fact about the event at Fatima is that it was predicted to take place on the date that it did occur. Accordingly, a large crowd gathered on that day. People came from many places, and various countries. Skeptics came too, and witnessed the extra-ordinary event that the three children said would take place that very day.

Mass hysteria is not a possible explanation, as even the most reserved and intellectual of observers gave very rational accounts of the day’s event.

Instead of trying to figure out where your lost socks go, try to figure out the predictive aspect of the Fatima event. It’s a lot more interesting than your socks.

 

[larkin31]

And what negative would that be? How about stop trying to go by science here and maybe** accept the fact that some things just can’t be explained**…

…Like God’s existance. It may not sound logical, but we accept it** because it has been proven He exists.**

The two bolded statements are contradictory. If something is “proven,” then we have all the “explanation” that there is.

If something cannot be “explained,” then I don’t see how it can also be “proven”.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

The two bolded statements are contradictory. If something is “proven,” then we have all the “explanation” that there is.

If something cannot be “explained,” then I don’t see how it can also be “proven”.

Well, the truth is that is can be explained, it’s just harder for some to do than others. It may not seem logical, but we know God exists because He has proven so. When God Himself prooves He exists, what more proof do you need?

 

[larkin31]

Well, the truth is that is can be explained, it’s just harder for some to do than others. It may not seem logical, but we know God exists because He has proven so. When God Himself prooves He exists, what more proof do you need?

I am not asking for proof of God. I am asking for consistency and clarity in your writing here.

 

[Answersplease]

If something cannot be “explained,” then I don’t see how it can also be “proven”.

Answersplease:

How does someone explain:

the exact cause of gravity,

the phenomenon called “ball lightning”,

why light has both wave (continuous & unbroken) and particle (not continuous) properties at the same time?

Some things that can be witnessed cannot be explained.

 

[larkin31]

Answers:

Is measuring, say, the heat or wavelengths of light from a bulb your analogy for “witnessing” existence of God? Are you suggesting that the supernatural has measurable qualities?

Originally Posted by Answersplease

How does someone explain:

the exact cause of gravity,

the phenomenon called “ball lightning”,

why light has both wave (continuous & unbroken) and particle (not continuous) properties at the same time?

Some things that can be witnessed cannot be explained

 

[humble_maid]

Peace be among you,

I am no expert in science but one thing I do know is that science can neither disprove nor prove the existence of God based on scientific measures and astrophysics alone. Yes it can uncover some realities of our universe but that is far from proving that God does not exist; on the contrary it can actually support the existence of some ‘Great Cosmic Being’ that has the energy to conceive and manipulate universes; it all depends on what angle you look at it.

I think we are looking too far back. What we should be asking is, ‘how did humans become the only living creatures capable of great intelligence, love, and a capability of destroying everything that lives?’ How can science explain that we, in this great expanse of the universe are the only living, intelligent beings? Please refrain from using the theory of evolution because this is greatly flawed and has been debated by great scientists. Something else has got to give.

 

[itinerant1]

Yes it can uncover some realities of our universe but that is far from proving that God does not exist; on the contrary it can actually support the existence of some ‘Great Cosmic Being’ that has the energy to conceive and manipulate universes; it all depends on what angle you look at it.

It is a correct observation about the limits of science that says science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However, I must disagree with the idea that science “supports the existence of some ‘Great Cosmic Being’”. Beside the fact that the notion of “Cosmic Being” is highly ambiguous, insofar as such an alleged being is said to be “cosmic” it does not transcend the cosmos, but remains somehow a part of it. This of course is a pantheistic conception of God as one with the universe. And there is no scientific or phenomenological data that one can cite as genuinely supportive of the existence of a ‘Great Cosmic Being’.

Please refrain from using the theory of evolution because this is greatly flawed and has been debated by great scientists. Something else has got to give.

As flawed as you may think evolution theory may be, and it does have its flaws, it remains, in its general features, on very solid ground.

Consider what Cardinal Ratzinger stated about creation and evolution:

"A belief in creation, rightly understood, and a rightly understood doctrine of evolution, do not stand in each other’s way. Evolution presupposes creation; creation, seen in the light of evolution, appears as an event extended over time–as a creatio continua, as a continuing creation–in that God becomes visible, to the eye of faith, as the ‘creator of heaven and earth.’

 

[larkin31]

…How can science explain that we, in this great expanse of the universe are the only living, intelligent beings?..

I had no idea that anyone had determined this claim to be true. How do we possibly know that we are “the only living, intelligent beings”? Seems to me that you are discounting the intelligence of many other living things on earth, and then assuming that because we have not communicated with any other species outside of earth, that therefore they must not exist. That is, of course, a unfounded assumption at this early stage of our very limited ability to explore the cosmos.

It seems much more reasonable to me to simply admit that at this point we have no idea if life of any kind exists beyond our world or solar system.

 

[itinerant1]

How can science explain that we, in this great expanse of the universe are the only living, intelligent beings?

Here is a short video you can watch about the Church and the subject of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe: Gold, Frankincense and Mars – Bro. Guy Consolmagno

 

[larkin31]

Here is a short video you can watch about the Church and the subject of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe: Gold, Frankincense and Mars – Bro. Guy Consolmagno

But where did he get that great sandwich?? Will Dan Brown write the novel on the secret?

 

[humble_maid]

It is a correct observation about the limits of science that says science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. However, I must disagree with the idea that science “supports the existence of some ‘Great Cosmic Being’”. Beside the fact that the notion of “Cosmic Being” is highly ambiguous, insofar as such an alleged being is said to be “cosmic” it does not transcend the cosmos, but remains somehow a part of it. This of course is a pantheistic conception of God as one with the universe. And there is no scientific or phenomenological data that one can cite as genuinely supportive of the existence of a ‘Great Cosmic Being’.

Thank you for your explanation. I was merely trying to make the atheists try to understand the concept of God as being in the universe. The word Cosmic does not do Him justice since He is set apart from it. The universe or cosmos came into to time at some point and is infinite whereas God(a spiritual being) is outside of time and space and eternal because He was the One who designed it. The question remains, ‘Who or how did God come into existence?’ It is obvious that there is another realm far more sophisticated than ours and hidden from the minds of humans. Perhaps one day science can make newer discoveries that can point us in that direction. Religion already understands this concept.

As flawed as you may think evolution theory may be, and it does have its flaws, it remains, in its general features, on very solid ground.

 

[itinerant1]

But where did he get that great sandwich?? Will Dan Brown write the novel on the secret?

Don’t you realize there are more interesting things in life than what’s for lunch?

 

[larkin31]

Don’t you realize there are more interesting things in life than what’s for lunch?

That’s only true if one has been fed well recently.

 

[itinerant1]

Humble Maid,
You said “Evolution according to Darwin was meant to disprove thè biblical notion of Creation thus making it nothing more than fantasy. Whereas today scientists are discovering the flaws in Darwin`s theory and realizing that for evolution to be there has to be an intelligent designer..”

The issues are not that simple. Darwin became an atheist and tried to discredit the notion of creation itself. However, that was his ideology and not his science. Scientifically, Darwin conclusively disproved the hypothesis of a special creation for each species. That is, species are instrumental in the production of new species. So, all is not false with Darwin. Furthermore, evolution theory is not co-extensive with Darwinism. There are multiple theories of evolution. The Church finds certain theories consistent with the Catholic faith, and materialist theories of evolution must be rejected by Catholics.

There is an intelligent designer, or as Pope Benedict indicated when he referred to the cosmos as the Intelligent Project. However, Intelligent Design theory, such as is espoused by Michael Behe, et al. wrongly explains design in the world. Intelligen Design theory is not science, it is philosophically flawed and it involves bad theology.

ID theory is not science because it asserts that the intelligence of a creator-designer can be observed and measured by scientific method. This is nonsense.

ID is bad philosophy because, as we say in classical philosophical terms, it conflates design with finality, and proximate with remote causes.

ID is bad theology because it requires the intelligent designer, i.e. God, to continually intervene in the processes of nature and supply all the necessary and special forces needed to bring about the production of what ID theory believes are “irreducibly complex” systems and organisms. However, this ID notion contradicts Church doctrines regarding God and his creative activity.

The resolution of the problem just indicated is seen in the fact that God, in his infinite wisdom and power, created matter with everything it needs to bring about the physical results God planned. An infinitely wise and powerful God does not need to repeatedly tinker with creation to make it work the way he wants. Hence, the “designer” of ID theory is not a truly infinite God. Also, “irreducible complexity” is a completely unproven hypothesis.

 

[itinerant1]

That’s only true if one has been fed well recently.

An undeniably true statement you have made.

 

[humble_maid]

I had no idea that anyone had determined this claim to be true. How do we possibly know that we are “the only living, intelligent beings”? Seems to me that you are discounting the intelligence of many other living things on earth, and then assuming that because we have not communicated with any other species outside of earth, that therefore they must not exist. That is, of course, a unfounded assumption at this early stage of our very limited ability to explore the cosmos.

It seems much more reasonable to me to simply admit that at this point we have no idea if life of any kind exists beyond our world or solar system.

Now you are talking like a theist. Atheists say that evolution did not need an intelligent designer; that all came to be from one single cell. From everything that evolved, we are exclusively the only living creatures to have the intelligence to manipulate the world around us. Animals cannot write novels, nor compose symphonies, nor send man to the moon. Thus in effect, through evolution, man is at the top of the food chain. It neglects to suppose, as you have demonstrated, that there is **another WORLD **with possibly greater beings than ourselves.

There is only one problem, with all the authentic miracles and sound testomonies of witnesses the unbelieving scientists will not admonish even the slightest possibility of ANOTHER REALM. THEISTS call this the SPIRITUAL WORLD. After all, the spirit realm in which the Biblical God dwells is another dimension of the universe in which greater beings than humans exist. Should God Himself come down to earth and proclaim this YOU unbelievers would not believe it anyway. But wait He did do such a thing

Every generation wants proof of God. They are perverse in that way. I have no objections with regards to investigating our world through scientific measures to better understand humanity but it utimately leads one to believe that there IS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER (GOD) and that there is ANOTHER REALM(the SPIRIT WORLD-HEAVEN AND HELL)

 

[humble_maid]

Humble Maid,
You said “Evolution according to Darwin was meant to disprove thè biblical notion of Creation thus making it nothing more than fantasy. Whereas today scientists are discovering the flaws in Darwin`s theory and realizing that for evolution to be there has to be an intelligent designer..”

The issues are not that simple. Darwin became an atheist and tried to discredit the notion of creation itself. However, that was his ideology and not his science. Scientifically, Darwin conclusively disproved the hypothesis of a special creation for each species. That is, species are instrumental in the production of new species. So, all is not false with Darwin. Furthermore, evolution theory is not co-extensive with Darwinism. There are multiple theories of evolution. The Church finds certain theories consistent with the Catholic faith, and materialist theories of evolution must be rejected by Catholics.

There is an intelligent designer, or as Pope Benedict indicated when he referred to the cosmos as the Intelligent Project. However, Intelligent Design theory, such as is espoused by Michael Behe, et al. wrongly explains design in the world. Intelligen Design theory is not science, it is philosophically flawed and it involves bad theology.

ID theory is not science because it asserts that the intelligence of a creator-designer can be observed and measured by scientific method. This is nonsense.

ID is bad philosophy because, as we say in classical philosophical terms, it conflates design with finality, and proximate with remote causes.

ID is bad theology because it requires the intelligent designer, i.e. God, to continually intervene in the processes of nature and supply all the necessary and special forces needed to bring about the production of what ID theory believes are “irreducibly complex” systems and organisms. However, this ID notion contradicts Church doctrines regarding God and his creative activity.

The resolution of the problem just indicated is seen in the fact that God, in his infinite wisdom and power, created matter with everything it needs to bring about the physical results God planned. An infinitely wise and powerful God does not need to repeatedly tinker with creation to make it work the way he wants. Hence, the “designer” of ID theory is not a truly infinite God. Also, “irreducible complexity” is a completely unproven hypothesis.

Thank you for the clarification. I understand and accept the Popes authority on this matter. With that being said, I am not refering to the usurped idea of the ID of the fundamentalist-creationist but that which existed before Michael Behe. Here are some excerpts in which ID was referred to: the words “intelligent design” had been used on several occasions as a descriptive phrase, distinct from the modern use as a label for “creationism”. The phrase “intelligent design” can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American,[58] in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove,[59] and even in an 1861 letter of Charles Darwin.[60] The phrase was used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.[61]

The phrase can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: “It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design”. A derivative of the phrase appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article titled, “Teleological argument for the existence of God”: “Stated most succinctly, the argument runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer”.[62] Robert Nozick (1974) wrote: “Consider now complicated patterns which one would have thought would arise only through intelligent design”.[63] The phrases “intelligent design” and “intelligently designed” were used in a 1979 philosophy book Chance or Design?

In the 17th century the English physician Sir Thomas Browne wrote a Discourse arguing the case for intelligent design. His 1658 The Garden of Cyrus is one of the earliest examples of ‘proof’ of the wisdom of God and gives examples of intelligent design in botany. In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as a means to understand “the mind of God”. This movement fueled the passion for collecting fossils and other biological specimens, which ultimately led to Darwin’s theory of the origin of species. Similar reasoning postulating a divine designer is embraced today by many believers in theistic evolution, who consider modern science and the theory of evolution to be fully compatible with the concept of a supernatural designer.