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

  • Thread starter Thread starter tossolul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know how much activity this thread will receive, but I regret to say that I will be out of town until Tuesday. If I can get an internet connection in the hotel, I’ll check in, but my responses may be delayed unitl early morning, or night.

…don’t want folks thinkin’ I left the thread without responding to their posts.

Peace,
Chris W
 
40.png
elwedriddsche:
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.
Please don’t let that question discourage you.from participation. We all can learn from open dialogue (I know I do 👍 )
 
Chris W:
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.
I do not concede your definitions of atheism and agnosticism, which in hindsight renders this discussion moot from the beginning.

You make a statement about the subset of atheists that I call strong atheists and it may well follow from the definition. For atheists in general (as I understand the term), we’ll have to agree to disagree.

edit: see blue highlight.
 
40.png
Everstruggling:
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.
Hartshorne has a little book called a Natural Theology for our Time. I last read it completely back in 1974 so am a bit fuzzy on him, but Hartshorne first attempts a definition, which only makes sense. I might get up on a soap box and boldly declare that round squares don’t exist. You would rightly say, Duhhh! Of course they don’t exist because the very idea of a round square is a contradiction in terms.

So when folks spout theism, atheism or agnosticism it makes sense to ax them what the heck they are saying exists, doesn’t exist or might or might not exist.

cordially,

Karl
 
*So when folks spout theism, atheism or agnosticism it makes sense to ax them what the heck they are saying exists, doesn’t exist or might or might not exist.

*Well, I would take it as a given that they are talking about a Creator who takes some interest in his creation and who expects his creation to return the favor. Anything beyond that would be difficult to ascertain for a certainty without the help of revelations.

This would cover most of the ancient as well as the modern religions.

Deism, a largely 18th century quasi-religious position (which lingers here and there right into our time), tries to evade the personal relationship but fails due to an instrinsically faulty logic that Isaac Newton repudiated. Deism tries to imagine an intelligent God without heart. Could this be the predictable theory of a cold intellectual elite who think God is more like themselves than anyone else?
 
Gilbert Keith:
Deism, a largely 18th century quasi-religious position (which lingers here and there right into our time), tries to evade the personal relationship but fails due to an instrinsically faulty logic that Isaac Newton repudiated. Deism tries to imagine an intelligent God without heart.
I’d say it fits the observable world.
If the world was created by an supreme intellect, it is more likely that intellect is ignoring it now (Deism), that intellect is bad (Catharians), or that intellect is the source of evil too (Jews), rather than that intellect is all good and perfect and puny humans messed up the entire universe.
Could this be the predictable theory of a cold intellectual elite who think God is more like themselves than anyone else?
That could very well be. Everyone’s making up their god after their image or liking.
 
AnAtheist

That could very well be. Everyone’s making up their god after their image or liking.


This would be true if there is no God, in which case this would be the logical position of the atheist. But in the Judeo-Christian tradition God is not made up according to our liking. God is revealed to us according to His liking.
 
40.png
tossolul:
any suggestions, or is it not possible?
I would ask them to prove God does NOT exist…

I like the use of Pascal’s Wager as a tool -

If you do not believe, and you die and you were right then no problem.

If you do not believe and you die and you find out you were wrong you will fry in hell for all eternity.

If you do believe and you discover when you die that you were wrong - no problem.

If you do believe and you discover when you die that you were right all along - no problem

HMMMMMM…

My experience has been that an Agnostic is willing to entertain the idea of a Spirit of the Universe but cannot imagine a God that is personally concerned with his well-being. An my experience with Athiests is that they actually do believe in God - they just think they are Him.
 
Chris W:
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.
I only presented fraud as one possible choice. I frequently go for “natural phenomena” myself. For instance, the doctor tells two patients that they have inoperable cancer and they have a month to live. One, a believer, goes to Fatima and is healed, must be a miracle. The other one, an atheist, cuts down on red meat and takes up Yoga, the doctor must have been wrong. People of all walks of life, of all beliefs, can have “miraculous” healings.

I have a friend who had a very large tumor. (It was definitely there, there were x-rays to prove it). He went to a psychic surgeon in the Phillipines. His cancer is now gone. (It’s definitely gone, there are x-rays to prove it.) It’s easy to do psychic surgery, and makes a great show. You use chicken guts and fake blood. He doesn’t have cancer now, though. I can only imagine that his belief that it was gone was so strong that his body somehow got rid of it.

You could say that I’m being prejudicial in a way. I don’t particularly want to believe in psychic surgery. You could say that I’m using a false analogy, but it seems really similar to me. I just don’t think the tumor was pulled out of his stomach by a psychic surgeon. I don’t think I’m being overly cautious if I say, “Ok, show me the proof. Let’s run tests on the stuff you pulled out.”
Chris W:
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).
I have a friend who swears that there is tonnes of documentation proving aliens are on Earth, but I have to confess I’ve never checked it out. I’m really not the slightest bit interested in them. You could be, and probably are, right that Fatima is better documented. I hereby withdraw any comparisons.
Chris W:
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.
Yup. You’ve got me there. I have to admit that I don’t want to believe in Fatima. My wants affect my belief far more than logic or scientific reasoning does.

Why don’t I want to believe? Because I can’t afford to go to Fatima. Neither can my clients. (I work in a health care/ social work facility. It pays minimum wage, but I feel good about myself when I get home.) Billions of people in the world are suffering from some sort of psychological, physical, or social ailment. Hundreds(?) are miraculously cured. There is no fairness in miracles. I don’t believe we live in a fair world, but then I don’t believe that the world loves me. Nobody tries to convince me that nature cares if I live or die. People, many people, tell me that God can and does love me.

If there is a God, I sincerly want him to be kind and compassionate. No one who is kind and compassionate, and has the power to change things, could sit by and watch. I wouldn’t, and I’m actually a bit of a jerk. I’m not talking about eliminating all pain all together; I’m talking about the pain that breaks people’s spirit. The overwhelming, soul-stealing pain that makes people lose faith in living, in love, and in themselves. I just can not be convinced that an all-powerful, all-loving God would cause that much pain. It isn’t fair. A God that would do that doesn’t deserve my respect.

So I choose to believe that God either does not exist, or that God doesn’t know, or that God just can’t change the world. My sanity won’t allow me to believe in a God gives to some and takes from others, and tells them all he loves them the same.

Sigh, now comes the inevitable… someone is going to tell me God loves me and answers my prayers. They are going to tell me God knows best and it is all a part of his divine wisdom and infinite love.

But, if God loves me, why doesn’t he show up and tell me himself? I wouldn’t ask for a long meeting, just a short, “Hi, it’s me. Look, I know this doesn’t make any sense right now. Just keep the faith, and we’ll have a good laugh when it’s done.” All I ask is about three seconds of togetherness with the God who made me and loves me. Preferably someplace I can afford to get to.

Sorry for rambling so long
 
Everstruggling

*If there is a God, I sincerly want him to be kind and compassionate. No one who is kind and compassionate, and has the power to change things, could sit by and watch. I wouldn’t, and I’m actually a bit of a jerk. I’m not talking about eliminating all pain all together; I’m talking about the pain that breaks people’s spirit. The overwhelming, soul-stealing pain that makes people lose faith in living, in love, and in themselves. I just can not be convinced that an all-powerful, all-loving God would cause that much pain. It isn’t fair. A God that would do that doesn’t deserve my respect.
*
Have you read C.S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain?

Personally, I don’t think there is any pain that can break a person’s spirit if that person is holding onto and trusting God. I know that’s hard to believe if you don’t believe in God. All you see is the pain. You don’t see the trust and the love and the conviction that your own pain is serving some plan of God that might even be in your favor … perhaps you are enduring your purgatory on earth. As one priest recently remarked, he prayed to God he would not have to be in purgatory very long. Immediately he began to experience a series of aches and pains and illnesses. Perhaps he will get his wish and go straight to heaven?

As for three minutes with God, you can have more than that if you become a Catholic … but only if you become a Catholic. He is present in the Eucharist at any church and is waiting for you to visit Him as many hours of the days as you like.
 
40.png
LSK:
I like the use of Pascal’s Wager as a tool -
Don’t do that. PW is a ridiculous argument, and it works the other way round too:

If there is no afterlife, nothing will happen.

If there is an afterlife but no judgement, everybody receives the same treatment.

If there is an afterlife and a judgement (by some god):
Option 1: That god is really just and loving, then he will judge you by your deeds, regardless of how you worshipped you him or not.
Option 2: That god is a egomaniac sicko judging by his whims, then it doesn’t matter at all, what you’ve done or believed.

Thus everybody has the same chances regardless of believing or not, but if you don’t believe, you haven’t wasted half of your life with religion.
 
Gilbert Keith:
As for three minutes with God, you can have more than that if you become a Catholic … but only if you become a Catholic. He is present in the Eucharist at any church and is waiting for you to visit Him as many hours of the days as you like.
Simply not true, not even the church herself makes this claim. If god chooses to present itself to a noncatholic, who are you to say he cannot?

cheddar
 
40.png
cheddarsox:
Simply not true, not even the church herself makes this claim. If god chooses to present itself to a noncatholic, who are you to say he cannot?
i think you misunderstood gilbert’s post…he was pointing out that in order to believe that you’re spending time in the presence of god when you’re in a catholic church, then you obviously have to believe that god is there in the blessed sacrament. but in order to believe that, you must presumably believe in the rest of catholic theology, or at least in as much of it as would make you “catholic”.

god can certainly present himself to whomever he wishes, but that’s not the point.
 
AnAtheist

*Don’t do that. PW is a ridiculous argument, and it works the other way round too:
*
If it was a ridiculous argument, the celebrated agnostic/logician Bertrand Russell would have disposed of it with great relish. But as it stands, it’s the only argument for God that Russell never attacked. And very likely because it is impervious to attack, Pascal himself being a better mathematician and logician than Russell.

Thus everybody has the same chances regardless of believing or not, but if you don’t believe, you haven’t wasted half of your life with religion.

Religion is only a waste to those who have not truly experienced it and are glad to condemn its value from outside because they do not understand what it does for us inside.
 
cheddarsox

*If god chooses to present itself to a noncatholic, who are you to say he cannot?
*
Agreed, as He presented Himself to me when I was not a Catholic. But He came to me then not in the Flesh, but in the Spirit. It was only when I became a Catholic and went to visit him in the Eucharist that I knew Him in the Flesh … which is what we were talking about.

God bless.
 
Gilbert Keith:
If it was a ridiculous argument, the celebrated agnostic/logician Bertrand Russell would have disposed of it with great relish. But as it stands, it’s the only argument for God that Russell never attacked. And very likely because it is impervious to attack, Pascal himself being a better mathematician and logician than Russell.
Technically, PW is not a proof or even a logical argument for the existence of God but it is a good tool to get people to understand why they should be searching for God.
Religion is only a waste to those who have not truly experienced it and are glad to condemn its value from outside because they do not understand what it does for us inside
.*
This was very well said. :clapping:
 
40.png
Everstruggling:
Yup. You’ve got me there. I have to admit that I don’t want to believe in Fatima. My wants affect my belief far more than logic or scientific reasoning does.
You are honest. It seems to me that a person who honestly looks at the evidence and logic will come to the conclusion that God’s existence is proven.
Billions of people in the world are suffering from some sort of psychological, physical, or social ailment. Hundreds(?) are miraculously cured. There is no fairness in miracles. I don’t believe we live in a fair world, but then I don’t believe that the world loves me. Nobody tries to convince me that nature cares if I live or die. People, many people, tell me that God can and does love me.
The existence of evil is the only argument against the existence of an all powerful, knowing, loving and good God. In fact it’s the only argument against God that rises to the level of a proof. There are many arguments for the existence of God that rise to the level of proof but only one argument against.

The answer to why God allows evil is free will. He could have created mindless automatons that praise and worship Him. In that case they could not truly love Him because love is given freely.

For God to be love he must love and be loved. To be loved there must be creatures of free will. If there is free will then some of the creatures may choose to turn away from God. Turning away from God is the definition of evil. The choice to turn away from God is the creation of evil.

The creation of evil and the fallen state of the universe is man’s fault not God’s.

If you are suffering from pain or know someone who is suffering, please let me know, I’d like to pry for you.
 
Gilbert Keith:
cheddarsox

*If god chooses to present itself to a noncatholic, who are you to say he cannot?
*
Agreed, as He presented Himself to me when I was not a Catholic. But He came to me then not in the Flesh, but in the Spirit. It was only when I became a Catholic and went to visit him in the Eucharist that I knew Him in the Flesh … which is what we were talking about.

God bless.
God may very well present himself in the flesh to a non-catholic as well. Again, it is not up to you to determine when, or in what manner the divine will choose to participate or reveal itself to any one or any part of creation.

I think one of the things that turns many away from God is being told that the divine is only this, only that, only shows up in this way etc. For some, that might be a draw “hey, look at me, I’m Catholic,part God’s special club” but for many, many others it presents the divine in a very negative petty light. And since no one, not even the Catholic church, has the divine on a leash, I think it would be best not to speculate or put limits on the way the divine will interact with its own.

I think it is fine and correct to say the divine interacts with Catholics in the flesh, through the Eucharist.

cheddar
 
Everstruggling said:

*But, if God loves me, why doesn’t he show up and tell me himself? I wouldn’t ask for a long meeting, just a short, “Hi, it’s me. Look, I know this doesn’t make any sense right now. Just keep the faith, and we’ll have a good laugh when it’s done.” All I ask is about three seconds of togetherness with the God who made me and loves me. Preferably someplace I can afford to get to.
*
Cheddarsox:

Did you miss that post? I was answering Everstruggling when I said he could meet with Jesus for more than three minutes in any Catholic Church before the Eucharist. But I’ll stick by my original point, which is that you’d have to be Catholic to have a real meeting. An atheist who goes before the Eucharist without belief will find the conversation a trifle one-sided. This is not to say that he could not be transformed by sitting, or even kneeling, before the Eucharist. Many have been.

I for one.
 
Gilbert Keith:
Everstruggling said:

*But, if God loves me, why doesn’t he show up and tell me himself? I wouldn’t ask for a long meeting, just a short, “Hi, it’s me. Look, I know this doesn’t make any sense right now. Just keep the faith, and we’ll have a good laugh when it’s done.” All I ask is about three seconds of togetherness with the God who made me and loves me. Preferably someplace I can afford to get to.
*
Cheddarsox:

Did you miss that post? I was answering Everstruggling when I said he could meet with Jesus for more than three minutes in any Catholic Church before the Eucharist. But I’ll stick by my original point, which is that you’d have to be Catholic to have a real meeting. An atheist who goes before the Eucharist without belief will find the conversation a trifle one-sided. This is not to say that he could not be transformed by sitting, or even kneeling, before the Eucharist. Many have been.

I for one.
No, I did not miss the post. I was responding to your assertion that one needed to be Catholic to actually meet and spend time with the divine. That was your response to her. That she could do it, but she would have to be Catholic.

I still don’t understand your assertion that one must be Catholic to have a real meeting. Why? How do you know?

What hubris is this, to claim a monopoly on the divine?

cheddar
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top