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

[Everstruggling]

Gilbert Keith:

What father dies on a cross for all of his sons and daughters and leaves behind not an empty ritual but His own precious Body and Blood to comfort them?

Only one Father does that … God the Father. And if you don’t think that’s a lot of hugs, it’s only because you see nothing but an empty ritual and do not hope for anything more from what has become for you a cruel and loveless universe that never hugs.

Do you deny God the father because He does not hug you? Or do you deny God the Father because you do not want Him to hug you?

I’ll tell you what. Why don’t we just ignore each other’s posts from now on. I really don’t feel like hearing the party line anymore, and you don’t seem to have any real interest in what I am saying either.

Let’s just save each other the agravasion.

 

[Maranatha]

Everstruggling:

I’m relieved that someone will admit that pain is a proof against a loving God. I was starting to wonder if there was any chance for real dialogue. I was feeling like people and I were just talking past each other.

This is where we disagree again. I’ve used this example before, (I think on the “main reason for atheism…” thread), but I can’t think of another example right at the moment. If I have two children, I could try and control their every move. I wouldn’t be showing them much love, trust, or helping them grow though. So I have to allow them to make their own mistakes. I have to give them a chance to learn to listen to me because I’m right, not because I tell them to. To this degree, I am giving them free will. I am being a loving, trusting parent, who is doing the best for my children.

But is it still love if I let one child rape the other? Or kill the other? Or enslave the other? If a child walks into the fire and burns themselves, am I not obligated to help? Shouldn’t I run in and try and rescue my child if a rip tide pulls them out into the ocean? Have I stopped loving them if I don’t let them play with guns in the house? If one steals the other one’s dinner, is it love that makes me say,“That’s his choice. He has free will; you should put up with it and turn the other cheek.”

Thank-you for the offer. I’m not particularly badly off, though. Most of my pain is in the emotional department. I’d feel bad about taking your time when there are people with much bigger issues.

I also have two children and they are both young. I have come to the realization that God teachs us when we try and parent. Yes, I do try and protect my daughters from harm - natural or self inflicted. There will come a time when I must let them go so they can make their own decisions. As adults, if they want to play with guns or walk though fire, I will counsel against it but I will not stop it.

As for natural disasters, I’ll say that God gives each person a limited time in this life. Some get more and some get less but all are limited. In the long history of the universe, does it make much difference if a person lives 8 months or 80 years? In today’s readings, Paul mentioned that he would almost rather go to Christ but was willing to continue living for our benefit. So, I don’t fear death. If God was to take (or allow to be taken) my 8 month old daughter, I (think) I would greave but would not despair. (I pray I’m not tested our course.)

Should God allow others so much free will that they could rape or kill others? Yes. Complete freedom is the only true freedom. Each person will be judged fairly and everlasting life will be so much better then this one, we can’t imagine it.

Emotional pain can be the worst. For important thing we should make the time. My sign in name is prayer.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

 

[Maranatha]

elwedriddsche:

Finally, it is fallacious to state that the truth of a claim is stronger for the number of purported proofs.

I disagree. Every day, jury’s come to the conclusion that a person in guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when there is a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, it’s reasonable to say, that a truth claim is stronger when there are more proofs.

BTW, if it’s logically impossible to absolutely prove anything then how can we find a person guilty of anything in court? It’s my supposition that atheist require a much higher standard of proof for the existence of God than reasonable. Most people are not atheist is because most people are reasonable.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Everstruggling

*I’ll tell you what. Why don’t we just ignore each other’s posts from now on. I really don’t feel like hearing the party line anymore, and you don’t seem to have any real interest in what I am saying either.
*
If I had no interest in what you are saying, would I be addressing you?

And if you don’t want to hear the party line, what are you doing at a Catholic web site?

In any case, be assured that you will get no more posts from me.

God bless and good luck.

 

[Krebsbach]

Mornin Elwed

elwedriddsche:

The definition game, again. To disambiguate, let’s compare how theists commonly define atheists and agnostics (T) and how they self-define (A).

ok

atheist(T): Makes the positive claim that deities do not exist.
agnostic(T): Is undecided whether or not deities exist.

atheist(A): Does not affirm that deities exist, but generally makes no positive belief claim one way or the other.
agnostic(A): Does not affirm to have knowledge that deities exist, but generally makes no positive knowledge claim one way or the other.

I stand corrected.

It is incorrect to equate atheists(A) with agnostics(T), by the way. Atheists(A) are justifiably sceptical about the existence of deities and there is not the least bit of indecision about it. For reasons of metaphysical fairness, with the exception of strong atheists they simply stop short of making a positive claim by themselves.

In short, the burden of proof does not rest on atheists(A), but on the theist. Atheists(A) don’t need to make a formal argument, they don’t need apologetics, and they don’t even owe theists an explanation for their lack belief.

Are atheists ever sceptical about their scepticism?

Finally, it is fallacious to state that the truth of a claim is stronger for the number of purported proofs.

I agree. If you add up a bunch of zeroes, you still have zero, but I don’t think that is necessarily the situation here. Not every theistic proof has been decisively proven false. After a while my intuition tells me that, in the face of so many positive arguments, there got to be something to it.

 

[Krebsbach]

So you guys (atheists) are simply without belief in deities. You aren’t saying necessarily that no rational argument for theism can be made. It’s just that us guys haven’t produced one to your satisfaction?

Based on your cumulative experience of debunking, you must have some sense of what doesn’t make a case for theism. But what would? How would one make a rational argument for theism? (I’m axing myself this question as well) Would we need to begin with an undeniable or universally accepted premise which is connected to the conclusin that God exists by an unbreakable chain of logic?

 

[AnAtheist]

Krebsbach:

You aren’t saying necessarily that no rational argument for theism can be made. It’s just that us guys haven’t produced one to your satisfaction?

Sounds ok to me.

Based on your cumulative experience of debunking, you must have some sense of what doesn’t make a case for theism. But what would? How would one make a rational argument for theism? (I’m axing myself this question as well)

I personally regard the ID/fine-tuning argument as the best I have seen so far.

Would we need to begin with an undeniable or universally accepted premise which is connected to the conclusin that God exists by an unbreakable chain of logic?

That would indeed help.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Elwed

*In short, the burden of proof does not rest on atheists(A), but on the theist. Atheists(A) don’t need to make a formal argument, they don’t need apologetics, and they don’t even owe theists an explanation for their lack belief. *

This is a convenient position to take since there IS no proof that God does not exist, whereas there are abundant pointers (if not absolute proofs) to the existence of God.

When the atheist takes the position of putting the burden of proof on the theist, he takes all of the burden off his own shoulders. Yet I cannot help but wonder how a person can be so certain there is no God without any proof of that certainty. Isn’t it a bit like saying there cannot possibly be any animals on Planet X a trillion miles from here without having been to Planet X?

The more sensible position, it would seem to me, is that of the agnostic, who says that there might or not be animals on Planet X but we have no way of proving it beyond a shadow of doubt. In this sense the agnostic is more open-minded and more amenable to the proposed arguments for the existence of God, whereas the atheist slams the door shut with shuddering finality.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

When the atheist takes the position of putting the burden of proof on the theist, he takes all of the burden off his own shoulders. Yet I cannot help but wonder how a person can be so certain there is no God without any proof of that certainty. Isn’t it a bit like saying there cannot possibly be any animals on Planet X a trillion miles from here without having been to Planet X?

The more sensible position, it would seem to me, is that of the agnostic, who says that there might or not be animals on Planet X but we have no way of proving it beyond a shadow of doubt. In this sense the agnostic is more open-minded and more amenable to the proposed arguments for the existence of God, whereas the atheist slams the door shut with shuddering finality.

Again, you are absolutely right, when it comes down to a general idea of the divine (in whatever form). That can’t be disproven with certainty, thus we must honestly hold an agnostic position.

BUT, most of the time we are not talking about the divine but some very specific god defined by you theists or Christians in particular. Then it does not come down to some animals on Planet X, to follow your metapher, it is more like Smurfs running a cantina on Jupiter. I can’t disprove that either, but I am convinced that’s bollocks. And before I buy that, I want proof, not for some animal on some planet but for Smurfs on Jupiter plus the cantina.

You mingle some loose undisprovable (nice word, just made it up, I think) concept of the divine with your very specific god image. I understand, for you the divine and Jehova are the same, please understand to non-Christians it is not. If we don’t distiguish there, we fall for the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

I understand, for you the divine and Jehova are the same, please understand to non-Christians it is not.

Understandably so. Once the notion of a Creator God is established and accepted, the debate continues because we must begin to define the Creator. Of course Christians will mingle their Christ with the Creator. Now the burden does shift to the Christian to prove that if there is a God, Christ is the most sensible and compassionate notion of God we could possibly find in all the religions of the earth.

Each person will have to decide for himself if that is true. A careful study of the Gospels will show that it is. There is no more sensible or loving God than the God who practices what he preaches. Jesus practiced his own dictum that there is no greater love than this: a man should lay down his life for his friend.

True, not all Christians have lived up the the teaching of Christ. That only shows that they still need to learn the lesson he taught. They still need to grow and “suffer” with Christ to learn the lesson of love, just as a human father could teach it (and suffer it too) when he puts his own sons through the hoop to make them better and stronger men.

 

[SamCA]

Krebsbach:

So you guys (atheists) are simply without belief in deities. You aren’t saying necessarily that no rational argument for theism can be made. It’s just that us guys haven’t produced one to your satisfaction?

Based on your cumulative experience of debunking, you must have some sense of what doesn’t make a case for theism. But what would? How would one make a rational argument for theism? (I’m axing myself this question as well) Would we need to begin with an undeniable or universally accepted premise which is connected to the conclusin that God exists by an unbreakable chain of logic?

I’m not sure I know of an argument that meets quite that lofty a standard, but I’ve always thought that if you could prove there’s only a single universe, or a relatively small number of universes, and that there has only ever been the one (or few) universes, then the argument from the anthropic principle becomes much more persuasive.

But we don’t know how many universes there are, so this one’s still not available as an argument. (And, of course, it’s invalidated if it turns out we live in a vast multiverse.)

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Again, you are absolutely right, when it comes down to a general idea of the divine (in whatever form). That can’t be disproven with certainty, thus we must honestly hold an agnostic position.

BUT, most of the time we are not talking about the divine but some very specific god defined by you theists or Christians in particular. Then it does not come down to some animals on Planet X, to follow your metapher, it is more like Smurfs running a cantina on Jupiter. I can’t disprove that either, but I am convinced that’s bollocks. And before I buy that, I want proof, not for some animal on some planet but for Smurfs on Jupiter plus the cantina.

i don’t follow - we’re talking about atheism, which is by definition a general philosophical position about the existence of a divine (creator) being. right? i mean, you’re an atheist, not an “a-christus-trinitarium-theist”…

i know you believe that there are logical inconsistencies with the concept of a christian god, but presumably you also believe that there are no gods of any kind, period. right? no vishnu, no shiva, no marduk, no ptah, no raven, no tiamat, no tlaloc, no heimdall, no ares, no…

but maybe i’m wrong - maybe you’re not an atheist tout court, but only regarding certain specific deities…

 

[john_doran]

SamCA:

But we don’t know how many universes there are, so this one’s still not available as an argument. (And, of course, it’s invalidated if it turns out we live in a vast multiverse.)

can you elaborate on this?

 

[Maranatha]

SamCA:

I’m not sure I know of an argument that meets quite that lofty a standard, but I’ve always thought that if you could prove there’s only a single universe, or a relatively small number of universes, and that there has only ever been the one (or few) universes, then the argument from the anthropic principle becomes much more persuasive.

But we don’t know how many universes there are, so this one’s still not available as an argument. (And, of course, it’s invalidated if it turns out we live in a vast multiverse.)

Hum, interesting. How does the uniqueness of semi-uniqueness of our universe make the anthropic principal more persuasive?

 

[The_Eurasian]

The Eurasian:

Attention: An Atheist, ALL ATHEISTS

Ask the atheist/agnostic to explain why the CONSECRATED BREAD AND CONSECRATED WINE in Lanciano NOW HAVE TINY BLOOD VESSELS. Ask them why these Human Heart Muscles HAVE NOT DECAYED THROUGH THE CENTURIES. Ask them why this Miracle happened in the BIRTHPLACE OF THE ROMAN CENTURION WHO PIERCED THE SIDE OF CHRIST. Bible says, “THEY SHALL REMEMBER HIM WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED.”

Atheists and agnostics can play the role of devil’s advocate and give us their criticisms on the pictures of the Consecated Bread and Wine now turned into Human Heart Muscle of Jesus Christ whose medical microphotographs are on these websites below.

negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/shortdesc.html

negrisud.it/en/abruzzo/miracolo_eucaristico/photorecognition.html

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

SamCA

But we don’t know how many universes there are, so this one’s still not available as an argument. (And, of course, it’s invalidated if it turns out we live in a vast multiverse.)

Nor do we know if there is more than one universe, or that this universe was “hatched” out of another one.

The willingness to believe in multiverses as an escape hatch from a Creator God of one universe only works if one abandons the belief that a thing must be proven to exist before you can believe it exists.

In my experience, atheists are a good deal more willing to believe in the possibility of multiverses without proof than they are willing to believe in God without proof.

Is this consistent? Or does it demonstrate once again that atheists really don’t want to believe in God, and that they will stretch their limits of disbelief enormously to grasp at a multiverse without proof rather than a universe whose existence can only be accounted for by a Creator God?

 

[SamCA]

Maranatha:

Hum, interesting. How does the uniqueness of semi-uniqueness of our universe make the anthropic principal more persuasive?

The anthropic principle points out that the universe as it exists is staggeringly unlikely, and that an arrangement of physical laws exactly like those we have is essential for even the formation of stars, let alone life.

However, if there are an infinite (or just mind-numbingly vast) quantity of universes, that doesn’t amount to very much. In an infinite multiverse, anything that could possibly happen, no matter how unlikely, is bound to happen somewhere. We just happen to inhabit the universe that shook out with laws conducive to life, in a multiverse where the huge majority of possible universes probably didn’t.

On the other hand, if there is only a single universe, or a very small number thereof, then the fantastically unlikely configuration of physical laws becomes rather more compelling.

It’s sort of similar to questions about the probability of abiogenesis, but on a cosmological level. If there were only a single planet in the universe, the odds of life arising by chance would be so remote as to be discarded out of hand, but since there are more planets than we can imagine, the probability argument sort of falls down.

 

[The_Eurasian]

AnAtheist:

…, I want proof,…

• • • • • • • • • • • • ++ + + + + +
                        An Atheists and other Atheists and Everybody

See Eurasian post #135, “The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.” Look at the medical photographs of bread that turned into Veins of Jesus Christ and Arteries of Jesus Christ and Human Heart Muscles and Cells of Jesus Christ.

The fact alone that they are some 1200 years old and have not decayed is miracle enough!!!

Know!!! So that one day in your deathbed, YOU WILL NOT SAY THAT YOU WERE NOT TOLD!!!

 

[Maranatha]

SamCA:

The anthropic principle points out that the universe as it exists is staggeringly unlikely, and that an arrangement of physical laws exactly like those we have is essential for even the formation of stars, let alone life.

However, if there are an infinite (or just mind-numbingly vast) quantity of universes, that doesn’t amount to very much. In an infinite multiverse, anything that could possibly happen, no matter how unlikely, is bound to happen somewhere. We just happen to inhabit the universe that shook out with laws conducive to life, in a multiverse where the huge majority of possible universes probably didn’t.

On the other hand, if there is only a single universe, or a very small number thereof, then the fantastically unlikely configuration of physical laws becomes rather more compelling.

It’s sort of the point about the probability of abiogenesis, but on a cosmological level. If there were only a single planet in the universe, the odds of life arising by chance would be so remote as to be discarded out of hand, but since there are more planets than we can imagine, the probability argument sort of falls down.

Thanks, This may need it’s own thread to discuss fully. It’s a bit off topic on this one.

 

[SamCA]

The Eurasian:

See Eurasian post #135, “The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.” Look at the medical photographs of bread that turned into Veins of Jesus Christ and Arteries of Jesus Christ and Human Heart Muscles and Cells of Jesus Christ.

And would the Church be willing to allow this purportedly miraculous tissue to be independantly tested by scientists unafiliated with the Catholic Church?

Because until then, I’m afraid I can’t put too much stock in it.