How Can We Prove There Is A God?

[friendlysaif]

“Proving” God exists is really not our purpose. We are only interested in providing clear statements based on facts and logic and then allow the individual decide for themselves who they would like to believe. There have always been people who believed in the existence of God and there have always been those who have denied in His existence. We must realize there are those who will never believe no matter how much proof or evidence we produce. The reason is some people don’t want to believe in a Creator or Sustainer. They would not like to consider one day they will have to answer for their actions and for their refusal to acknowledge their Benefactor to whom they owe their very existence. We come to know it is not so much a matter of us trying to convey our beliefs as it is for them to set aside preconceived prejudices against proper belief. Meaning: this is really a matter of guidance from Above. If they refuse even with evident proofs in front of them, this is not between us and them; it is between them and their Creator. Again, it is not our job to “prove” anything to anyone. We only need to present the facts in truth and allow the listener to make up their own mind.

We just begin with simple logic. When something is right in front of our eyes it is difficult to deny it, right? Asking rhetorical questions can be very helpful in presenting our case. Begin by asking the question; “Can you prove you exist?” Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine what you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things He has created and the way He cares for things and sustains us, to know there is no doubt of His existence.

One approach is to suggest simple yet convincing experiments anyone could comprehend. For instance, say to someone, “Consider this the next time you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.”

Another example is have them consider what might happen if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.

Or ask someone to consider what it would be like if someone told us about a fast food restaurant operating itself without any people there? The food just cooks itself, files from the kitchen to the table and then when we are done, the dishes jump back the kitchen to wash themselves. This is too crazy for anyone to even think about.

After reflecting on all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the cells in a microscope and then think all of this came about as a result of a “big bang” or some “accident”?

 

[Waiting]

Those who can’t see the need for a creator just by viewing the universe and its precise workings, will never believe any less obvious argument. They are the Doubting Thomases of the present. Even if someone heard from God personally, and many have, these doubters will not believe. Save your strength. Don’t argue with them…pray for them.

 

[Salvatore123]

friendlysaif,

If you mean by “prove”, the use of empirical evidence, then we cannot prove the existence of God. If we could prove God through the use of science or mathematics or any other discipline, we would not need faith.

I don’t need to have faith that a chair exists before I go to sit down, because my eyes see it and my hands feel it, and experience has taught me that when those two things occur simultaneously, then a chair exists and it will support me as I sit down.

The same applies to everything else we experience with our senses in the world.

Now, does the inability to prove that God exists mean that man is irrational in believing in God? Of course not.

Even atheists (especially atheists who are also scientists/physicists) acknowledge that everything had a beginning, no matter how long ago that beginning occurred. But such atheistic scientists/physicists do not know what to call that which “created” the beginning of “us”.

After all, I know of nothing or no one or no being who has the ability to create something out of nothing. And that is where the scientific/physics argument breaks down: one goes back to the “beginning” and some “spark” occurs that sets in motion the universe. But what caused that “spark” and what/who created the material the “spark” set into motion that led to the universe as we set it today?

I, as an orthodox Catholic, choose to call that creator of both the spark and the material to which the spark was applied, God.

The scientists/physicists, if they are honest, have to answer: “I don’t know” when asked who/what set everything into motion.

 

[steveb1]

The “proof from the beginning of the universe” - or any such physicality-based “proofs” is unconvincing. If it were not, nearly every astronomer, physicist, and cosmologist would be a “Creatorist” (not Creationist, but Creatorist, i.e., a believer that the universe has its source in the action of a deity).

In science, there are myriad, sound, cosmological theories that posit an eternal universe, and that do not include the necessity of any creator. And there are theistic theories that claim that the universe is eternal, since it is continually being created, eternally, by an eternal creator. In this latter case, there is no room for a creator who invented “Time” and filled it with a, or, many, universes and dimensions, because there was never a beginning to the universe, just as the creator is beginningless.

Moreover, if any solid evidence for a creator ever emerges, it is not necessary that the creator be a deity, or the Israelite god in particular. The creator could turn out to be a sophisticated set of mathematical processes whose function it is to spawn universes; or the creator could be a powerful, ancient alien or alien culture or team of aliens who create just for creation’s sake; or the creator could be universe-creating 'hackers" in some other dimension, who create worlds as their form of “Sims”.

The essential problem with involving God - who by most definitions is a spirit - in physicality is the famous conundrum of human themselves creating a god - a god of the gaps. Making one’s belief in God dependent upon God’s involvement in matter - even if it is only, like the Deistic god, to have created the universe untold eons ago - is that it pins God to a purported physical causality. Therefore this physically-enmeshed deity faces the threat of invalidation because if a creator or creators are eventually discovered, they may not be spirits or divine beings at all, and the “last, best” argument for God’s existence will have gone the way of all prior invalidated theories.

Therefore, my own personal belief is that God is real, but is not a creator. This theory has liberated me from the last vestiges of the “God must be a creator” theories. I am also liberated from the necessity - common to all Creatorist theories - of inventing a theodicy in order to excuse the existence, and the persistence, of evil in a “good” universe supposedly created by a “good” creator.

It’s really this simple. All too many theists claim that God must of necessity be a creator, to which I reply, “That is like saying, ‘Either the moon is made of green cheese, or it doesn’t exist’.” There are other options available, and I do not pin God’s reality on the proposition that God must be, has to be, a creator.

 

[Salvatore123]

steveb1,

With due respect for your own beliefs, all that you have posited is something/someone that you claims “began” the universe as we know it.

I make that same claim, except I call that something/someone “God”.

I don’t know why you are so adverse to the idea of creation. To my mind, it makes perfect physical and logical sense that all things had a beginning. Well, if a beginning existed, then a “before the beginning” existed as well. We Catholics (and I am sure other Christians) belief that God, out of love, chose to create something out of nothing. THAT is the essence of creation.

As far as your mentioning of “time”, isn’t time simply man’s invention, and doesn’t it simply measure “change”? Think about it - if everything remained the same - time would be meaningless because that which existed before a given point would be the same as that which existed after a given point. If nothing changes, why bother to measure “time”?

 

[steveb1]

My main point is that even should a creator or creators be discovered, it is not necessary or certain that they will be gods or a god. As I said, the creator - if such exists - could be any number of things or beings, none of which are deities. I also explained that a creator-deity is also ultimately just one more “God of the Gaps”, and to be avoided for that reason.

Secondly I said that every creatorist system of necessity must invent a theodicy in order to justify the existence - and especially the persistence - of evil in a supposedly “good” universe created by a purportedly “good” god.

That alone is one very good reason - aside from all the non-creatorist cosmological theories - that I object to the idea of “creation by deity”. Such a being has far too much to excuse, explain, and answer for in terms of pointless waste, suffering, and death.

That is why my God-definition is non-creatorist: Since God is not a creator, God cannot be praised for the goodness in the world and cannot be blamed for the evil in the world. A non-creatorist deity is much to be preferred over a creatorist deity for whose acts and refraining from action theodicies must be constructed.

Finally, I am not in awe about the physical universe. It is vast, perhaps infinite, but so what? It is often beautiful. But again, so what? The physical universe is nothing but an amalgam of various mindless cycles of force - of insentient processes completely indifferent to suffering creatures. I would never willingly make God a party to such an empty, cold, meaningless, dangerous-to-living-things mechanism.

So I hope that the above reasons should be sufficient to explain why I object to creatorism and why I believe in a non-creatorist God.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I don’t think it’s possible to prove there is a God - not with scientific, evidential proof of the type atheists seek. See, they are closed to the idea of God. They refuse to accept it. They will certainly accept almost as stunning things like the atom (or the atom bomb), or the dual nature of light. But they refuse to accept the notch marks God has left in His creation.

All we can do is show the world to the atheist in a light that is ever gradually more theologically favourable. (This may help our friend Eh, Steve! too. )

Take the Earth, for example. While there is plenty of destruction, death, and seeming boneheadedness in its order, there are also plenty of examples of how the world brings life out of death, brings order out of chaos, and renews itself out of destruction. Bacteria and insects and molds take over dead carcasses and reconstitute them into the soil, for starters. The Red Forest near Chernobyl is starting to thrive again and produce interesting flora and fauna. Deserts would seem desolate and dead. Yet coyotes, jackals, colourful cactus, sagebrush, lizards, snakes thrive there and nowhere else. The tundra, though cold and barren, have lemmings, polar bears, sea lions, penguins, and even arctic willows and mosses that dwell and survive there. Life and order is abundant upon the Earth. Even from disasters like typhoons life rises. Even in areas of nuclear disaster, life comes back.

The Earth is not ponderous and wonderful because it is invincible to disaster. It is wonderful because despite disaster, it keeps fighting to stay alive, despite everything.

And it’s this sort of wonderful ability to bounce back that makes men wonder why it was made so. And inspiring people to think about “why” the world is inspires questions about God. God is not a God of the Gaps. He is a God of THE GAP - the question: WHAT IS THE POINT?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Prove there is a God by going out and loving someone. Then maybe you will have been the proof for your neighbor.

 

[DPMartin]

The proof of God is the Presence of God with you. Demonstrated with the Israelites in their history, and demonstrated in Jesus Christ. Proof of God was with Peter when others would seek to be in Peter’s shadow to be healed. Simple no Presence of God no proof of God. Or at the least, no proof that He is with you. Look to the stars, you see stars, look to the moon you see the moon. Look to Jesus Christ, you see the Presence of God in human existence.

God don’t need mankind to prove He exists, mankind needs God to be. The Living God through His Word given, in His Presence, is the source of Life, in order to be. It seems that men are always looking for something that is bullet proof, rather then seeking that which bullets cannot take away. Which is the Life of God given to the world through our Lord Jesus Christ forever.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

In science, there are myriad, sound, cosmological theories that posit an eternal universe, and that do not include the necessity of any creator.

What I say to those “scientists” is that they are positing in a realm where they have no jurisdiction. They are in the Philosophical/Theological realm. Scientists think “by definition” they have the authority to “posit theories” about absolutely everything that can be conceived, which is wrong. There is no practical way to PROVE the big bang theory, much less any events antecedent to the big bang. When Scientists just presume to impose upon us by the force of their “scientific logic” then they are exceeding their bounds. That is the same logic that will be disproved some generations from now with entirely new discoveries or even theories.

If scientists stayed within the bounds of Science, meaning that which can be demonstrably proven, then they would not have spokesmen like Stephen Hawking spewing silly non-scientific theories about gravity creating the Universe.

 

[nordskoven]

Fulfilled prophecy proves God is. “I am.” That engenders hope, a grasp of the history of God’s providential workings. The history of hope makes faith, acting in reliance on God’s unvarying truth and love (past behavior being the surest predictor of future behavior) rational. Charity is loving God; and loving our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. That’s right relationship and all virtue subsists in it. It is why I am not knocking you down and stealing your lunch. Yet even the demons believe. May we who believe, love; and lovingly “hear and obey.”

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkess, and the darkness grasped it not.”–John I 1-5

If you don’t get it, that’s of God, as in His saying He has “veiled the hearts of the Jews” until the time of the Gentiles is over. That’s “invincible ignorance.” If you refuse to get it, that’s on you and will be judged. It’s my duty to say so. That’s “willing disbelief.” But now, as Christ emphasizes to the mystics, He is the Lord of Mercy and will too soon come as the Lord of Judgment. I beg God’s mercy on us all that He will “enlighten the eyes of our hearts” and keep us “faithful and true.”

 

[da_nolo]

“Proving” God exists is really not our purpose. We are only interested in providing clear statements based on facts and logic and then allow the individual decide for themselves who they would like to believe. There have always been people who believed in the existence of God and there have always been those who have denied in His existence. We must realize there are those who will never believe no matter how much proof or evidence we produce. The reason is some people don’t want to believe in a Creator or Sustainer. They would not like to consider one day they will have to answer for their actions and for their refusal to acknowledge their Benefactor to whom they owe their very existence. We come to know it is not so much a matter of us trying to convey our beliefs as it is for them to set aside preconceived prejudices against proper belief. Meaning: this is really a matter of guidance from Above. If they refuse even with evident proofs in front of them, this is not between us and them; it is between them and their Creator. Again, it is not our job to “prove” anything to anyone. We only need to present the facts in truth and allow the listener to make up their own mind.

We just begin with simple logic. When something is right in front of our eyes it is difficult to deny it, right? Asking rhetorical questions can be very helpful in presenting our case. Begin by asking the question; “Can you prove you exist?” Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine what you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things He has created and the way He cares for things and sustains us, to know there is no doubt of His existence.

One approach is to suggest simple yet convincing experiments anyone could comprehend. For instance, say to someone, “Consider this the next time you are looking up at the moon or the stars on a clear night; could you drop a drinking glass on the sidewalk and expect it would hit the ground and on impact it would not shatter, but it would divide up into little small drinking glasses, with iced tea in them? Of course not.”

Another example is have them consider what might happen if a tornado came through a junkyard and tore through the old cars; would it leave behind a nice new Mercedes with the engine running and no parts left around? Naturally not.

Or ask someone to consider what it would be like if someone told us about a fast food restaurant operating itself without any people there? The food just cooks itself, files from the kitchen to the table and then when we are done, the dishes jump back the kitchen to wash themselves. This is too crazy for anyone to even think about.

After reflecting on all of the above, how could we look to the universe above us through a telescope or observe the cells in a microscope and then think all of this came about as a result of a “big bang” or some “accident”?

I read the above and am totally lost.

majority of people who question the Lord question His ability to being Infinite. I Show them energy and the dimensions of space. two ‘things’ (for lack of better word) that are infinite. energy only transforms or changes, it can not be lost or stop (from my understanding-so if there is someone to say I am wrong, please do). the areas or dimensions in which all planets and ‘things’ currently exist in has always existed. even before the big bang or what ever created the universe (under an atheist’s eye). If these two ‘things’ are infinite, then more may also be.

atheist’s also question being all good or all knowing. claiming that the two contradict one another. “knowing of” - is not the same as doing, however.

there are multiple reasons why someone would argue God. Just remember that they can’t prove his non-existence, but only create doubt. study and really know what you believe in and that will help stay firm. Pray to God, it helps I would say.

As for the question. Allah is God of Abraham as is Yahweh and Jesus.

 

[Salvatore123]

As much as I admire the intelligence level and thinking capacity of people like Einstein and now Hawking, I am always amazed at how sure they seem to be of there being no God or “creator” in the sense that we Catholics (or Christians, for that matter) believe.

Hawking has finally seemed to put his eggs in the basket of the universe being created by “gravity”. That’s it - gravity.

Hawking says: "“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing . . . Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

I am astounded that someone with a mind such fails to discuss what I consider the “real beginning” - who created gravity and who decided to put it “into action”?

I always have and always will call that “who”, God.

I have never thought it really mattered HOW God created the universe. Believing that he was responsible for all of it was all I needed to know to be “happy”.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Salvatore123:

I am astounded that someone with a mind such fails to discuss what I consider the “real beginning” - who created gravity and who decided to put it “into action”?

His judgment is clouded with personal prejudice. He can pontificate from his bully pulpit with what he feels is true, however lacking in scientific proof it might be. It’s interesting to note that he has come around 180 degrees from his earlier position that there must be a God. It makes me wonder how his own aging has reversed his opinions. He doesn’t say what scientific discovery has brought about this change, just that he has reversed his opinion.

But scientists will always make fools of themselves when making statements about the non-existence of God. God, by its very definition is transcendent of all creation. Therefore science can never encompass God. But when puffed up with their own powers of thought, they fail to see this simple impediment to their theories.

 

[steveb1]

A snip

Hawking has finally seemed to put his eggs in the basket of the universe being created by “gravity”. That’s it - gravity.

Hawking says: "“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing . . . Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

I am astounded that someone with a mind such fails to discuss what I consider the “real beginning” - who created gravity and who decided to put it “into action”?

snip

But that’s the whole point of my earlier post. Science *can and does * have theories that do not require a finite universe or a creator of such. A finite universe “caused” by a creator is not a scientific necessity (it may be a philosophical necessity for some, but even there, non-theistic “origin” theories abound).

“Who created gravity” is exactly the issue. *There does not need to be a “who” involved * at all. That’s already assuming 1) a creator which is also 2) personal.

As I have already pointed out, even if a creator is finally discovered, it does not need to be a deity or a spiritual being at all. It MIGHT be such an entity, but it does not NEED to be. Two things follow from this:

1. The creator may be an alien, an alien team, an ancient set of alien universe-creating devices, a hacker from another dimension, but not a god at all.
2. If the creator does turn out to be a deity, there is no reason to think that it must be a deity worshiped or conceived of by human beings.
3. Much too much leaping is done by Christian theists. They leap from the assumed necessity for a First Cause, to assuming that the First Cause must be a deity, to assuming that this deity must be the tribal god of ancient Israel. Dangerous, and potentially very embarrasing and devastating, leaps indeed.

 

[Crumpy]

I find all the science fascinating, but I am not inclined to dismiss the God of revelation.

I have been overwhelmed by the concept of infinity, from the time I was a boy. Nothing has come along to explain infinity. I can’t get my mind around that. So, how can I get my mind “around” God?

Personally, I don’t demand a scientific explanation of God. As Blessed John Paul II said inhis book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope – people who reject God reject the way that God has revealed himself. That’s the essence of atheism. People start with themselves and then try to derive God. I don’t think it works that way.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

steveb1:

But that’s the whole point of my earlier post. Science can and does have theories that do not require a finite universe or a creator of such.

That’s the whole point of my earlier post. Just because “science” can articulate a question or posit a theory does not mean that science has any business articulating such a question or positing such a theory. IOW, how does science PROVE an infinite universe? If science only “thinks” but does not prove, then all it is is philosophy or theology. Better to leave the philosophy and theology to the philosophers and theologians. Let scientists busy themselves with facts and evidence, and have enough humility (yes, even scientists need humility) to recognize when they are outside the limits of their discipline.

 

[PJM]

=friendlysaif;7870787]“Proving” God exists is really not our purpose. We are only interested in providing clear statements based on facts and logic and then allow the individual decide for themselves who they would like to believe. There have always been people who believed in the existence of God and there have always been those who have denied in His existence. We must realize there are those who will never believe no matter how much proof or evidence we produce. The reason is some people don’t want to believe in a Creator or Sustainer. They would not like to consider one day they will have to answer for their actions and for their refusal to acknowledge their Benefactor to whom they owe their very existence. We come to know it is not so much a matter of us trying to convey our beliefs as it is for them to set aside preconceived prejudices against proper belief. Meaning: this is really a matter of guidance from Above. If they refuse even with evident proofs in front of them, this is not between us and them; it is between them and their Creator. Again, it is not our job to “prove” anything to anyone. We only need to present the facts in truth and allow the listener to make up their own mind.

We just begin with simple logic. When something is right in front of our eyes it is difficult to deny it, right? Asking rhetorical questions can be very helpful in presenting our case. Begin by asking the question; “Can you prove you exist?” Yes, of course you can. You merely use your senses to determine what you can see, hear, feel, smell, taste and you have emotions as well. All of this is a part of your existence. But this is not how we perceive God in Islam. We can look to the things He has created and the way He cares for things and sustains us, to know there is no doubt of His existence.QUOTE]

I too favor the LOGIC approach; but wonder sometimes if we’re not expecting too much:shrug:

This seems logical to me I call it “The 3 Step”

1. Universe consist of BILLIONS of stars, planets, and gaxaxies BUT ONLY ONE; earth can BE PROVEN to support life: WHY?

1. On this planet of earth with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of “living things”; ONLY ONE; humanity can love. WHY

1. Love requires a mind, intellect, and freewill. Humanity alone, is BLESSED with these gifts. These attributes can be shown BUT NOT quantifed. WHY? Because they are Spiritual attributes. Because “like must come from Like” [can’t give what we don’t possess], these attributes must come a Spiritual Source. We call this source God.

God Bless,

Pat

 

[BiscuitCrusader]

It depends on who you are proving it to. Yourself? A fellow Christian? Another religious person? A Buddhist? A non-believer? If you doubt Him yourself, then you need to look inside of yourself for that true joy and comfort that comes when you think of God; of kowing that he loves you, and you don’t need proof. God the father is just that- our father, and you know that your earhtly mother and father love you without them needing to tell you- although it’s nice when they do. And they know you love them- the problem with God is that he tests us by removing his presence from us and trusts us to know that he loves us all, and hopes that we love him back.

As for persuading other people, it can be nearly impossible. For those people whose minds are based on the material, what they touch, eat, see, smell, hear, what they observe, the idea that an entity far greater than humans, who posture and swan about with nuclear weapons, electricity, medicine, guns and explosives, can exist is as alien to them as the possibility of there being no God is to us! But with our continued love and understanding of them, our actions will prove to them God’s exostence and they will receive the love of God as we have all embraced. Keep on persevering, brothers and sisters, and we will prevail. And together with our Muslim and Jewish brothers and sisters, we can walk arm in arm together with them into the gates of heaven.

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t think we can prove that there is a God. I believe that it is something that a person must have faith in. And then again, even if it is provable, some people will still find a reason not to believe.