How do I answer this rebuttal?

[Jenny_Z]

I had a lengthy debate through email with a friend, and after a while, it got down to the philosophy of God.

Them: “Prove God exists”

Me: “I can’t prove he exists, and you can’t prove he doesn’t. I go by faith, that the universe and everything in it didn’t happen by chance.”

Them: “Well, I can’t prove that the Easter Bunny exists, and you can’t disprove that the Easter Bunny exists. How is that different?”

How do I respond to that?

 

[buffalo]

I had a lengthy debate through email with a friend, and after a while, it got down to the philosophy of God.

Them: “Prove God exists”

Me: “I can’t prove he exists, and you can’t prove he doesn’t. I go by faith, that the universe and everything in it didn’t happen by chance.”

Them: “Well, I can’t prove that the Easter Bunny exists, and you can’t disprove that the Easter Bunny exists. How is that different?”

How do I respond to that?

The Easter bunny we know is character dreamed up by us. Of course they will reply so is God.

We can find God thorugh reason. God also came to meet man.

We have evidence and use inductive reasoning to support the case for God.

 

[Scottgun]

There is no serious testimony to the existence of the Easter Bunny. There is serious tesitmony about God, especially His Incarnation, Jesus Christ.

 

[birtwalnco]

I don’t have so much idea regarding this subject. Just I suggest you to take steps accordingly.

 

[FightingFat]

We have two main avenues of attack- the witness of Scripture, the historical record of God’s intervention in the history of men, His reaching out to us even as we reached out in our blindness to Him. And reason. The world is in motion, it is teleological in nature with a beginning and an end, all things start and all things reach an end- they have purpose.

 

[Isambard]

I had a lengthy debate through email with a friend, and after a while, it got down to the philosophy of God.

Them: “Prove God exists”

Me: “I can’t prove he exists, and you can’t prove he doesn’t. I go by faith, that the universe and everything in it didn’t happen by chance.”

Them: “Well, I can’t prove that the Easter Bunny exists, and you can’t disprove that the Easter Bunny exists. How is that different?”

How do I respond to that?

A better comparison would’ve been a comparison with Athena.

-Both had scriptures “given” to man by their god
-Both had devouted worshippers ready to be martyred
-Both gave “revelations”
-Both performed “miracals” for their believers

Just accept that belief in God is entirely based on faith and incredibly subjective “evidence”.

 

[buffalo]

A better comparison would’ve been a comparison with Athena.

-Both had scriptures “given” to man by their god
-Both had devouted worshippers ready to be martyred
-Both gave “revelations”
-Both performed “miracals” for their believers

Just accept that belief in God is entirely based on faith and incredibly subjective “evidence”.

None had claimed to be the Son of God. None were Rusurrected and seen by many afterwards. None were seen to Ascend. None were able to feed over five thousand. They were jokers.

 

[FightingFat]

Jesus miracles and parables are also unique- His miracles are usually not known to any (eg the wedding feast at Canaan, or the feeding of the five thousand) He does not perform miracles to seek adulation, but to manifest the power of the LORD.

 

[Isambard]

None had claimed to be the Son of God.

Hercules

None were Rusurrected and seen by many afterwards.

Hercules

None were seen to Ascend.

Hercules

None were able to feed over five thousand.

Hercules didn’t, but he did rid the world of many dangerous monsters. Hercules > Jesus?

They were jokers.

How can you spit on the face of someone who sacrificed so much for mankind?

 

[MarcoPolo]

You could point out to your friends a number of things he has not witnessed first hand, yet believes in because of the testimony of others. He is a hypocrite to trust others unless he can empirically verify their testimony for all claims.

Furthermore, this is why God spent upwards of 3 chapters in Job 38-40+ telling Job about “evidence” of Himself in the world.

Any rational thinking person knows there must be a First Cause. If he chooses to believe the First Cause came and went, then he’s believing something for which he has no evidence.

 

[crowonsnow]

It is impossible to demonstrate that any alleged supernatural being is real. People should be free to choose to believe whatever their experiences dictate. It’s what we do that is the best indicator of belief anyway.

So I declare draw.

 

[Isambard]

You could point out to your friends a number of things he has not witnessed first hand, yet believes in because of the testimony of others. He is a hypocrite to trust others unless he can empirically verify their testimony for all claims.

Furthermore, this is why God spent upwards of 3 chapters in Job 38-40+ telling Job about “evidence” of Himself in the world.

Any rational thinking person knows there must be a First Cause. If he chooses to believe the First Cause came and went, then he’s believing something for which he has no evidence.

There is no reason to assume a conscience first cause, or even a first cause as we may think of it. Everything could simply be infinitely sequential.

Any claims otherwise would inevitably involve special pleading to “resolve” the problem of infinite regress.

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is no reason to assume a conscience first cause, or even a first cause as we may think of it. Everything could simply be infinitely sequential.

Any claims otherwise would inevitably involve special pleading to “resolve” the problem of infinite regress.

Assuming the First Cause, which created time and space out of nothing, mind you, is unconscious, then you still have a “God”.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I had a lengthy debate through email with a friend, and after a while, it got down to the philosophy of God.

Them: “Prove God exists”

Me: “I can’t prove he exists, and you can’t prove he doesn’t. I go by faith, that the universe and everything in it didn’t happen by chance.”

Them: “Well, I can’t prove that the Easter Bunny exists, and you can’t disprove that the Easter Bunny exists. How is that different?”

How do I respond to that?

Hi Jenny,

I will first note that most people who demand proof for the existence of God do not want evidence for the existence of God, so much as physical evidence for His existence.

There are two problems with that.

First, God, being infinite, is a spirit. Similar to the fact that a triangle cannot have more or less than three sides, God must be a spirit. Just as a triangle must have three sides or else it is not a triangle, God must be infinite. By definition, being material precludes the possibility of being infinite.

Second, such a demand attempts to preclude the possibility of obtaining proof by limiting the “allowable” evidence. This shows a choice to stick to a preconceived conclusion.

That said, there are several proofs for the existence of God in addition to the argument from Causality, such as the arguments from design, History, Aesthetics, & many more.

For starters, you might take a look at the writings of Peter Kreeft, for more information on some of these.
peterkreeft.com/featured-writing.htm

For a more in depth look, I recommend the book “Apologetics & Catholic Doctrine”, by Archbishop Michael Sheehan. It was written back in 1952 (IIRC), & can be difficult to find, but it deals extensively with the proofs for God’s existence, objections to them, as well as explanations of Catholic doctrine. In fact, this book along with the Catechism would be sufficient to be wholly prepared to “give an explanation for the hope that is in you” as St. Peter exhorted us to be in 1 Pet. 3:15.

Used bookshops may have copies, & you may be able to find updated copies on the internet, like here:

saintant.com/showitem.html?itemno=8156

God bless,

Chris

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I had a lengthy debate through email with a friend, and after a while, it got down to the philosophy of God.

Them: “Prove God exists”

Me: “I can’t prove he exists, and you can’t prove he doesn’t. I go by faith, that the universe and everything in it didn’t happen by chance.”

Them: “Well, I can’t prove that the Easter Bunny exists, and you can’t disprove that the Easter Bunny exists. How is that different?”

How do I respond to that?

Just because we agree that we can’t prove to each other that one, or two, or fortyfive things exist, ALL that says is that we can’t do THAT.

It does NOT mean that we agree that we can’t GET proof that any of those things exist!

I have PROOF that God exists (provided by God), but only God can give me that proof.

If anyone has PROOF that the Easter Bunny exists, they got that proof from someone (or some thing) that has the authority to do so, yet they most likely won’t be able to direct you to that “person’s” address.

If they can, please post it on these forums, as many people would be VERY interested indeed!

 

[Isambard]

Assuming the First Cause, which created time and space out of nothing, mind you, is unconscious, then you still have a “God”.

Perhaps if you wish to talk about “God” in a naturalistic pantheistic sense. Personally, I think it just demonstrates how meaningless the concept of “God” really is as you can make it mean just about anything.

 

[buffalo]

Perhaps if you wish to talk about “God” in a naturalistic pantheistic sense. Personally, I think it just demonstrates how meaningless the concept of “God” really is as you can make it mean just about anything.

I hope you explain your mission here on CA to the OP. The OP was seeking answers you are not willing to help with. Go to another thread.

 

[Isambard]

I hope you explain your mission here on CA to the OP. The OP was seeking answers you are not willing to help with. Go to another thread.

I do hope you appretiate the irony of me being ontopic, and you going out of your way to attempt a character assasination.

 

[buffalo]

I do hope you appretiate the irony of me being ontopic, and you going out of your way to attempt a character assasination.

I am asking you to respect the OP. You either will or will not indicating your own character.

 

[Isambard]

I am asking you to respect the OP. You either will or will not indicating your own character.

Respect what? The OP asked a question, I answered it. I also took the liberity to deflate some poor arguements presented as all it would do is lead the OP back here following any future exchanges. Don’t like the rebuttles? Then get better arguements.