How would you go about proving God's existence to an atheist or agnostic?

[Gilbert_Keith]

elwed

… because all you achieve is to provoke one of two reactions: antagonism or indifference.

Hopefully a Catholic and an atheist are antagonists … of intellect, but not in their hearts. If you are not in an apologetics forum to thrust and parry … what are you here for?

I certainly don’t feel that you are indifferent to my views … as you have clearly indicated above.

God bless.

 

[Krebsbach]

elwedriddsche:

I do not intend to discuss whether or not god exists and whether or not a particular definition is well-defined.

In general, the problem with this approach is that it simply shifts the debate towards the definition.

Well, what do you want to talk about?

cordially,

Karl

 

[Everstruggling]

Chris W:

Indeed, an atheist may attempt such an endeavor, however his logic is not like the theist. Let’s consider just one example: Miracles.

There are many well documented miracles, verified by many an unbelieving scientist, doctor, etc.

The theist is free therefore to consider all evidence. The atheist is not. The atheist has no choice but to ignore such things as inexplicable miracles.

I’ve been mulling this over, and I don’t think It’s acurate. For one thing, atheists general explain miracles as hoaxes, tricks, mistakes, natural phenomena, illusions, and coicidences. Sometimes, they accept that they have no explaination for them. They… well, I… point to equally bizarre travesties and ask why God didn’t step in. For every Fatima there are hundreds of hurricanes that could have been stopped by an all powerful God.

Also, there are just as many people “proving” aliens, sasquatches, monsters, ghosts, and psychics as there are miracles. And the people that believe in them have as many studies to support them and experts on their side defending them. I’m generalizing a little, but I think the point holds.

Miracles are so outside of normal everyday experience they don’t seem strong enough evidence to justify belief in something that is omnipresent.

Put it this way, I accept that Einstein might be right, because, although I don’t regularly do experiments on matter near the speed of light, his theories pertain to things I see every day: things falling, stars, the moon, tides, wrinkles. I’ve been shown how his theories can relate to the things I observe.
In my day to day life, I see far more that is inconsistent with a loving God than I see with things that are consistent with it.

 

[Everstruggling]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to respond to a couple of thing that didn’t tie in with my first post.

Dear Maranatha,

Thanks for your response. I’m about to go check that link, but I suspect that this evidence doesn’t fall within criteria #2. Not all people, as far as I can see, feel the need to do good, and there are biological, social, and psychological explainations of why the majority of people do. I was hoping for something more specific and tangible. But like I said, I will check out that link; I might be wrong and I am interested.

Dear Karl,

Thanks, I’ll have a look at Whitehead and Hartshorne. I know a very little about Whitehead, but I’ve never heard of Hartshorne before. I look forward to getting a new perspective.

elwedriddsche:

The scenario you describe would only prompt me to question my mental health.

Technically, for any definition of a deity that is amenable to falsification, a sufficiently advanced being can convincingly fake whatever falsification criterium one settles on. In other words, no proof will ever satisfy everybody.

Dear elwed,

Really? If I were to tell you, “Look, I can prove that there are unicorns, all you need to do to see one is go outside and drip honey on the grass. Everytime you do this, they will show up within an hour. Bring your friends, everyone will be amazed.”

Would you really think you were going nuts if you tried it and it worked? How do you believe anything? I mean once, sure, can be a mental aberation. But numerous times? What other criteria for the existence of something can you possiblely hope to achieve?

 

[Maranatha]

Everstruggling:

Thanks for your response. I’m about to go check that link, but I suspect that this evidence doesn’t fall within criteria #2. Not all people, as far as I can see, feel the need to do good, and there are biological, social, and psychological explainations of why the majority of people do. I was hoping for something more specific and tangible. But like I said, I will check out that link; I might be wrong and I am interested.

The argument is meant for you to examine your personal experience. Do you have an internal pressure towards good? Where does that come from?

 

[Maranatha]

Everstruggling:

But like I said, I will check out that link; I might be wrong and I am interested.

Why are you interested? Why do you have the need to search for the truth? What is driving you?

 

[santaro75]

Pete2:

Of course, God’s existence can’t be proven, it’s a matter of faith.

Pete

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

 

[elwedriddsche]

Everstruggling:

Really? If I were to tell you, “Look, I can prove that there are unicorns, all you need to do to see one is go outside and drip honey on the grass. Everytime you do this, they will show up within an hour. Bring your friends, everyone will be amazed.”

Would you really think you were going nuts if you tried it and it worked?

Yes, I would.

How do you believe anything? I mean once, sure, can be a mental aberation. But numerous times? What other criteria for the existence of something can you possiblely hope to achieve?

All of these are open-ended questions and philosophers have filled books with what answers they see fit.

We have to trust our senses unless we want to risk a descent into the pits of solipsism, but if something is that far removed from prior experience, I would have to reexamine this premise and question my senses and sanity or suspect trickery. It’s not a question I lose sleep over, though.

My basic point is any being capable of manipulating our senses is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from a god. Why such a being would want to do so is another question.

 

[Maranatha]

santaro75:

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states:

31
Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments,” which allow us to attain certainty about the truth.
These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world and the human person.
32
The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.
35
Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God.
(emphasis mine)

The official position of the Catholic Church is that God’s existence is provable.

The Catholic Church has Sainted Theologians such as Thomas Auuinas, Bonaventure, and Augustine because of their work on Christian Philosophy. They used reason and logic, apart from Divine revelation, to clear the way for revelation. In the case of Atheism, they used philosophy to prove God’s existence which then opens an individual to the possibility of Divine revelation.

In the article “Apologetics Without Apology” in Envoy magazine from January 1997, they said: Traditionally, theologians have divided apologetics into three categories: “natural” apologetics, Christian apologetics, and Catholic apologetics. So-called “natural” apologetics concerns truths that really are preambles to faith - truths such as the existence of God, the spirituality of the human soul, the objective reality of right and wrong, which the articles of faith presume or rest upon. These truths are knowable from the natural light of reason, hence the term “natural” apologetics. (emphasis mine)

The exsistemce of God is knowable (provable) using logic and reason.

 

[elwedriddsche]

Gilbert Keith:

Hopefully a Catholic and an atheist are antagonists … of intellect, but not in their hearts.

One should always remember the distinction between a difference of opinion and outright enmity, which is a lesson my father taught me well. Sadly, sometimes the boundary is fuzzy.

If you are not in an apologetics forum to thrust and parry … what are you here for?

Why, to find enjoyable conversation if possible and to leave if not.

I certainly don’t feel that you are indifferent to my views … as you have clearly indicated above.

If it makes any sense, I am antagonistic and indifferent both.

 

[Everstruggling]

Hey Maranatha,

I’m back.

I’m actually really impressed by the arguments there, but…(we all knew there was going to be a “but”, didn’t we.)

God’s existence isn’t really of any interest to me. What interests me is feeling love, well-being, connectiveness, belonging, and understanding. The existence or non-existence of God is of much import to me as the existence or non-existence of atoms. I wouldn’t exist without atoms, but I don’t feel particularly grateful or even all that cognizant of their existence. The reason I gave the sequence of events that I did was that something appearing to me personally, like Jesus walking into my livingroom, would affect the way I live my life. It would be something or someone I could relate to.

When I say that I don’t believe in God, what I am really saying is, “There is nothing in my life that I can relate to, that I would call God.”

Your questions are good, I don’t believe in dragons, but I’m not on a board discussing them. It isn’t a question I would even bother debating. I obviously have some investment in the subject of God.

 

[Everstruggling]

elwedriddsche:

Yes, I would.

All of these are open-ended questions and philosophers have filled books with what answers they see fit.

We have to trust our senses unless we want to risk a descent into the pits of solipsism, but if something is that far removed from prior experience, I would have to reexamine this premise and question my senses and sanity or suspect trickery. It’s not a question I lose sleep over, though.

Okay, I guess we disagree. I’m glad you won’t lose sleep over it though, I’d feel guilty.

 

[Chris_W]

Everstruggling:

I’ve been mulling this over, and I don’t think It’s acurate. For one thing, atheists general explain miracles as hoaxes, tricks, mistakes, natural phenomena, illusions, and coicidences. Sometimes, they accept that they have no explaination for them. .

We are in agreement then. The atheist must ignore this evidence because he is not free to consider the only answer that can be offered. To say it is a hoax, is to refuse to consider the evidence, for that is the purpose of so much well documented investigation by non-believing scientists and doctors, to remove the possibility of a hoax, natural phenomena, illusion or coincidence.

Am I safe to presume you have never really looked into the miracle healings at Fatima? It may amaze you if you allow yourself to investigate.

Everstruggling:

They… well, I… point to equally bizarre travesties and ask why God didn’t step in. For every Fatima there are hundreds of hurricanes that could have been stopped by an all powerful God…

But for you to point to these things is to change the subject. To ask why God didn’t step in to stop a natural disaster is a theological question that can only be answered once God has been identified.

Everstruggling:

Also, there are just as many people “proving” aliens, sasquatches, monsters, ghosts, and psychics as there are miracles. And the people that believe in them have as many studies to support them and experts on their side defending them. I’m generalizing a little, but I think the point holds…

Not Hardly. This supports my presumtion that you have never actually delved into the claims of Fatima, and this seems like an attempt to distract from that topic. If you wish to discuss the evidence supporting these things, we can discuss that, but I am asking you to consider the evidence regarding the miracle healings at Fatima.

Everstruggling:

Miracles are so outside of normal everyday experience they don’t seem strong enough evidence to justify belief in something that is omnipresent. …

Interesting. What would be enough? (I think that question was aksed earlier on in the thread and someone answered that he/she would need to see a miracle…and then another repeat miracle).

The question is, what explanation other than God can the atheist offer, when a man has x-rays and exams by multiple doctors confirming an incurable illness or condition. Then enters the healing waters at Fatima in faith of a divine God, and upon coming out of the waters is tested again by multiple doctors, exams, x-rays, and no longer has the incurable illness?

Everstruggling:

Put it this way, I accept that Einstein might be right, because, although I don’t regularly do experiments on matter near the speed of light, his theories pertain to things I see every day…

Perhaps because you allow yourself to see them. Perhaps because these things do not conflict with your world view. Ask a Christian if he/she sees the interaction of God in their daily lives and you will likely be told we do…constantly.

Keep challenging others and asking questions. I enjoy reading your thoughts. I believe you are sincere.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Everstruggling]

Chris W:

We are in agreement then. The atheist must ignore this evidence because he is not free to consider the only answer that can be offered. To say it is a hoax, is to refuse to consider the evidence, for that is the purpose of so much well documented investigation by non-believing scientists and doctors, to remove the possibility of a hoax, natural phenomena, illusion or coincidence.

Actually, I completely disagree with everything you said. You are saying that I am refusing to see the only valid explaination. I am saying that your explaination isn’t the only valid explanation, and you are refusing to see the alternatives.
Chris W:

Am I safe to presume you have never really looked into the miracle healings at Fatima? It may amaze you if you allow yourself to investigate.

No, that wouldn’t be a safe assumption. I was a Catholic for over a decade, and I studied Fatima a great deal (My parish was Our Lady of Fatima, how odd is that?). I was, I think, devout, but I had strong suspicions of Fatima even then.
Chris W:

But for you to point to these things is to change the subject. To ask why God didn’t step in to stop a natural disaster is a theological question that can only be answered once God has been identified.

I’m sorry, I thought it was right on topic. Let me try and make my point in another way: If you feel that miracles prove that God exists, what kind of phenomena do you except would challenge the existence of God? Both should be considered with equal weight.

• I just deleted the whole bit about aliens, because I think these other points are more pressing.

Chris W:

Interesting. What would be enough? (I think that question was aksed earlier on in the thread and someone answered that he/she would need to see a miracle…and then another repeat miracle).

The post to which you are refering is mine. I didn’t actually specify a miracle (unless we define miracle as “something that necessarily entails a divine being”). A paraphrase of what I said is, that one would have to predict an action that could only be an action of God, it would have to happen within the specified time frame, and it would have to be repeated. It would also have to be something that I could witness. I have problems believing things that I can’t experience for myself. I do make exceptions, but mostly I’m fond of first hand knowledge.
Chris W:

The question is, what explanation other than God can the atheist offer, when a man has x-rays and exams by multiple doctors confirming an incurable illness or condition. Then enters the healing waters at Fatima in faith of a divine God, and upon coming out of the waters is tested again by multiple doctors, exams, x-rays, and no longer has the incurable illness?

I could try, but there would be no point. My explaianations satisfy me, but I can not imagine that they would satisfy you. I could try like I said, but why don’t we just agree that to disagree on this point.
Chris W:

Keep challenging others and asking questions. I enjoy reading your thoughts. I believe you are sincere.

Thank-you, I enjoy your point of view as well.

 

[elwedriddsche]

Chris W:

The atheist must ignore this evidence because he is not free to consider the only answer that can be offered.

Just to nitpick, you present a false dichotomy.

For the sake of argument, let’s define a miracle as a non-repeatable event that seems to defy the known laws of nature.

If one cares to give them any credence at all, these events must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Some will be found to have a naturalistic explanation, others rely solely on the least reliable form of evidence, eyewitness accounts. I would guess that some purported miracles are outright frauds. Whatever is left is by definition not amenable to research under controlled conditions, which makes it highly suspect from a scientific viewpoint.

Like any claims of supernatural events, there will always be a few for which no naturalistic explanation is readily available. The false dichotomy is to assume that either a naturalistic explanation must be provided or else a supernatural explanation must be accepted. From a naturalistic point of view, the only intellectually honest stance is a third option - to neither accept nor reject such evidence, but remain reserved until it can be shown for a fact that no naturalistic explanation is possible. This is, of course, a reversal of the "have you looked everywhere’ repartee of theists and amounts to challenging the theists to prove a negative.

Technically, there is a fourth option - to directly show the supernatural, which effectively renders the supernatural into something natural.

To make a long story short, atheists do not have to reject the claim that miracles happen - it is sufficient to not accept it.

 

[Maranatha]

Everstruggling:

God’s existence isn’t really of any interest to me. What interests me is feeling love, well-being, connectiveness, belonging, and understanding.

This is from point #2 in Dr. Kreeft’s article The Three Most Profound Ideas I Have Ever Had.

A second realization follows closely upon this one. That is, it follows logically. But it did not follow closely in time for me. Instead, it took half a lifetime to appreciate, through a million experiments, every one of which proved the same result: that the way to happiness is self-forgetful love and the way to unhappiness is self-regard, self-worry, and the search for personal happiness. **Our happiness comes to us only when we do not seek for it. It comes to us when we seek others’ happiness instead. **It is an embarrassingly common lesson to take so long to learn, but most of us are incredibly slow learners here. We constantly try other ways, thinking that perhaps the happiness that did not come to us the last time through selfishness will do so next time. It never does. The truth is blindingly clear, but we are clearly blind.

The secret of love is not hidden, for “God is love,” and God is not hidden. God said through his prophet Isaiah: “I did not speak in secret, / in a land of darkness; / I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, / ‘Seek me in chaos.’ / I the LORD speak the truth, / I declare what is right” (Is 45:19).

Of course God’s secret plans, which we do not need to know, are hidden. And God’s infinite nature, which finite minds cannot know, is hidden. But the thing that we need to know, God does not hide from us. He offers it to us publicly and freely. Jesus invited prospective disciples to “come and see” (In 1:39). We are told by the apostle Paul to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thes 5:21).

This lesson is so well known that even a pagan like Buddha knew it profoundly, or at least its negative half. His “second noble truth” is that the source of all unhappiness and suffering (dukkha) is selfishness (tanha). All who teach the opposite—that selfishness is the way to happiness—are unhappy souls. “By their fruits you shall know them,” as Jesus tells us. Who are the happiest people on earth? People like Mother Teresa and her nuns who have nothing, give everything, and “rejoice in the Lord always” (Phil 4:4).

 

[coyote]

elwedriddsche:

Speaking as an atheist, agnostic, or whatever label you want to assign to me, with some qualifications I don’t care what anybody else believes in.

I am intrigued. Why do agnostics and atheists register, post and participate on a religious forum?

 

[elwedriddsche]

coyote:

I am intrigued. Why do agnostics and atheists register, post and participate on a religious forum?

Why not?

It would never occur to me to ask why theists do the same on atheist forums. Unless they are transparently proselytizing, in which case I need not ask.

 

[Chris_W]

Everstruggling:

Actually, I completely disagree with everything you said. You are saying that I am refusing to see the only valid explaination. I am saying that your explaination isn’t the only valid explanation, and you are refusing to see the alternatives…

Oh, I misunderstood. You said, *“atheists general explain miracles as hoaxes, tricks, mistakes, natural phenomena, illusions, and coicidences. Sometimes, they accept that they have no explaination for them. They… well, I… point to equally bizarre travesties and ask why God didn’t step in.” * I did not understand from your response that you see an alternative explanation, other than to call it a fraud of some kind…an answer which I think needs to be justified by explanation.

Everstruggling:

No, that wouldn’t be a safe assumption. I was a Catholic for over a decade, and I studied Fatima a great deal …

Yet you compare the documentation about the miracles at Fatima to the evidence provided by those who belive in aliens? There is no comparison. Scientists have not been able to, in public, examine the evidence of aliens and subject it to scientific testing that rules out other explanations (at least not that I’m aware).

Everstruggling:

If you feel that miracles prove that God exists, what kind of phenomena do you except would challenge the existence of God? Both should be considered with equal weight. …

You would need to provide me a well documented case by various opposing sources all of whom agree that the phenomena is so far outside the realm of what is scientifically known that there can be no alternative to the conclusion that God does not exist. If you have such evidence, by all means present it, and I will feel compelled to provide an answer. If I cannot provide an alternative to the conclusion you provide, I must then admit I cannot be sure your position is incorrect.

This actually occurred to me recently, regarding certain aspects of the theory of evolution. I was flat convinced it is a myth. Faced with some evidence provided by evolutionists in these forums, for which I have no alternative answer to dispute this or that claim, I have had to revise my position. Now, although my gut dislikes the idea, I can no longer say that particular claim is false. I must admit the potential exists that some aspects of evolution which I previously denied are possible. Until I can come up with an alternative answer that holds up to scrutiny, this has to be my position, or I give up any claim to intellectual honesty.

Everstruggling:

A paraphrase of what I said is, that one would have to predict an action that could only be an action of God, it would have to happen within the specified time frame, and it would have to be repeated. It would also have to be something that I could witness…

Yes, that would be nice wouldn’t it? But if the scenario you describe does not occur, then you disregard any other cases that need an answer? Sounds like a way to protect your current position.

Scientists to this day can test the Miracle of the Eucharist in Lanciano Italy and verify the claim of a miracle that ocurred in the 8th century. As late as 1981 well credentialed scientists have examined the host and cup of blood, which have been preserved by no means science can explain. For 12 centuries they were exposed to the air, humidity, and environment. As late as 1981 (the last testing I recall), the coagulated blood still contains the proteins and other minerals in the appropriate proportions as does fresh blood (blood less than 48 hours old).

To say it is a miracle of the God who is worshipped in that host and cup is an answer to the question “how can this be?”. To say “ahh, hogwash” is to refuse to give an answer.

Everstruggling:

I have problems believing things that I can’t experience for myself. I do make exceptions, but mostly I’m fond of first hand knowledge…

Do you need to suffocate to believe you need air to live? Deductive reasoning must play a part, for you cannot have experienced first hand “mostly” everthing you believe.

Everstruggling:

My explaianations satisfy me…

Do they?

 

[Chris_W]

elwedriddsche:

Just to nitpick, you present a false dichotomy…

I’m listening

elwedriddsche:

For the sake of argument, let’s define a miracle as a non-repeatable event that seems to defy the known laws of nature…

Fair enough

elwedriddsche:

…these events must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Some will be found to have a naturalistic explanation, others rely solely on the least reliable form of evidence, eyewitness accounts. I would guess that some purported miracles are outright frauds. …

I’m with ya so far

elwedriddsche:

…Whatever is left is by definition not amenable to research under controlled conditions, which makes it highly suspect from a scientific viewpoint…

Huh? How do you conclude that whatever is left is “not amenable to scientific research under controlled conditions”? Says who?

The Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano still exists today. It is not an eyeitness report of years ago. It can still be tested, as was done in 1981 by scientific skeptics.

elwedriddsche:

…Like any claims of supernatural events, there will always be a few for which no naturalistic explanation is readily available. The false dichotomy is to assume that either a naturalistic explanation must be provided or else a supernatural explanation must be accepted. …

Thats not what I said. I said the atheist must ignore the problem.

elwedriddsche:

From a naturalistic point of view, the only intellectually honest stance is a third option - to neither accept nor reject such evidence, but remain reserved until it can be shown for a fact that no naturalistic explanation is possible. …

I guess that’s what I call ignoring the problem However, considering your statement, I would call a person who takes that approach an agnostic (unsure, doesn’t care, whatever) rather than an atheist (who says there is no God).

elwedriddsche:

To make a long story short, atheists do not have to reject the claim that miracles happen - it is sufficient to not accept it…

I disagree. I call that a big 'ol cop-out. That would be like me saying to the evolutionist “prove it” to which the evoluionist provides evidence and says “see, there is no alternative explanation” and then me responding “well, I do not have an answer, but I know evolution is false”. That is far removed from intellectual honesty in my opinion.

An atheist does need to reject the claim that miracles happen. If he doesn’t reject that claim then he cannot say there is no God, which puts him in the catagory of the agnostic.