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

[exoflare]

Chris W:

I heard this example: I have never been to Istanbul and yet I know without a doubt that it exists. Why would I believe that? Someone could show me a postcard from that place, but I could argue that it could be fake. Someone could show me a world atlas, but I could argue that it is incorrect. I could see a news report about it, but I could say that it could theoretically be the result of video trickery. I could talk to someone on the phone from there, but I could argue that he may not really be calling from Istanbul. I could read about it in a history book, or a biography of someone from that place, but I don’t necessarily believe what I read. And yet I know without any doubt that Istanbul is a real place. It does exist. I know it exists because of the convergence of evidences. The likelihood of all those things being the result of fraud is simply not reasonable to believe. There can be no other explanation for the agreement of so many independent evidences, except that it does exist.

This example may not even be as far-fetched as it was meant to sound… I’ve heard people use the very same type of logic you refer to here to deny that man ever set foot on the moon!

 

[elwedriddsche]

Gilbert Keith:

How true! As I said above, atheism springs from the desire for there to be no God, rather than the intellectual evidence that God does not exist. No evidence exists that God does not exist. The conviction therefore must be in the will, rather than in the intellect. Find out why the atheist *does not want *God to exist, and you begin to understand how to address the underlying problem.

And many atheists turn this around to:

“How true! As I said above, theism springs from the desire for there to be God, rather than the intellectual evidence that God does exist. No evidence exists that God does exist. The conviction therefore must be in the will, rather than in the intellect. Find out why the theist *does want *God to exist, and you begin to understand how to address the underlying problem.”

I’m right and you’re wrong, eh.

 

[Chris_W]

elwedriddsche:

And many atheists turn this around to:

“How true! As I said above, theism springs from the desire for there to be God, rather than the intellectual evidence that God does exist. No evidence exists that God does exist. The conviction therefore must be in the will, rather than in the intellect. Find out why the theist *does want *God to exist, and you begin to understand how to address the underlying problem.”

I’m right and you’re wrong, eh.

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. Consider the miracles at Fatima for example. Theism answers how these unexplicable events occurred. Athiesm cannot.

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.

A thiest has a reason to believe. Ask someone and they’ll tell you why they believe in God and how it affects them. There is a motivation that is transparent, and is gladly explained.

Contrast that to atheism. Atheism is different because it is a rejection of a belief, rather than a positive belief. An athiest has no transparent reason to reject the idea of God. Rather than consider the reason, he turns to science and tries to insist that it is logic and empriacle evidence that caused his rejection of God. But I would argue that without a reason to reject God, a true atheist shouldn’t care if there is or isn’t a God.

It is therefore a different thing: To assert that a theist has personal motives that encourage him to believe in God, brings an answer of “Of course!..here’s why”. To assert that an atheist has personal motives that encourage him to reject God, brings a denial and a response of “Most certainly not…empiracle evidence…etc, etc.”

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ELWED

No evidence exists that God does exist.

On the contrary, there is considerably more evidence that God exists than that God does not exist. There is absolutely no evidence that God does not exist. But there is plenty of evidence pointing to a moment in which the universe was created. There is more evidence pointing to the likelihood that the universe was intelligently designed.

The atheist has nothing of this sort to point to when he says he is convinced that God does not exist. He cannot, for example, point to a law of physics that says the universe is infinite and eternal, which would negate the need for a Creator. Nor can he point to any law of the universe that says the universe is chaotic and without design.

It follows that the atheist does not believe in God, not because there is proof that God does not exist, but because he *does not want *God to exist. Find out why he does not want God to exist and you begin to understand his ulterior motive.

The ulteror motive of the believer wanting God to exist, of course, is to save his everlasting soul. Hope, it’s called in Christian theology. I suppose it could be said that the atheist also has hope, hope that God does not exist. What would motivate such a hope?

But then we get into depth psychology. Read psychologist Paul Vitz’s fascinating refutation of atheism in his FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS.

 

[Everstruggling]

Hey everyone,

Some fantastic points on this message so far.

I’m somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic. Here is what argument would convince me:

1. Define God - What exactly are we talking about? Man in the sky? First mover? Love? Spirit? I don’t believe in the man in the sky; I don’t understand what Spirit is; I don’t really care if there is a first mover if that is all I know about it; and I do believe in love. I love lots of people. I’d be looking for a specific definition.
2. Predict an action that only God can perform - I’m talking about a concrete, miraculous, and personally observed by myself example. I’m not going to be as impressed by what happened to a 9th Century monk as I will be if tonight, before I go to sleep, I see the roof of my house open and Jesus appears before me telling me to repent. I’m also not talking about something untestable like a person telling me, “Pray for forgiveness, and you will be forgiven.” It might be true, but how would I know?
3. The action happens
4. Repeat this action more than once

If someone can do this, I will believe. I won’t change the goal posts, won’t deny what I saw, or try to explain why it doesn’t count. I’ll accept I was wrong.

This might seem rather extreme, but is it really? My science teacher proved things to me like this all the time. “All objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, watch this! See? I’ll do it again.”

True, I believe Nero existed, and I’ve never seen Nero, but I’ve seen men, and Nero is just another man. I’ve never seen anything like God, so how can I know there is one if I’ve never seen it act.

 

[elwedriddsche]

Gilbert,

I am neither interested in a “who is right” debate, nor can I motivate myself to reply to your sentiment regarding atheists. Whatever floats your boat…

At the end of the day, “I’m right and you’re wrong” is a good recipe for a heated exchange, but not so effective in swaying opinions.

 

[elwedriddsche]

Everstruggling:

Here is what argument would convince me:

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.

 

[Mystophilus]

elwedriddsche:

And many atheists turn this around to:

"How true! As I said above, theism springs from the desire for there to be God, rather than the intellectual evidence that God does exist. No evidence exists that God does exist.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, remember.

Your general point remains nonetheless valid. Theism and atheism are both belief positions.

 

[elwedriddsche]

Mystophilus:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, remember.

I am well aware of that. It is also the reason why those that try to actively disprove the existence of god use reductio ad absurdum on a specific god-definition.

But remember, absence of evidence to the contrary does not disprove a negative, either.

A few random remarks…

A hidden premise of the initial question is that proving the existence of god will implicitely lead to worship of that god.

All the so-called proofs of god’s existence lead the unbeliever to the Deist god at most.

Some of you have shifted the emphasis from showing the theist position to be true to showing why it is more desirable.

 

[cheddarsox]

Here is how I got where I am in my beliefs.

I saw no evidence in the universe of the Judeo/Christian God, but stayed in contact with religion because I felt there was something going on, and church and religious practice serves an important role in my life, whether it is true or not on an empirical level.

Had some experiences with the divine that strongly suggested the God of my childhood was a false presentation.

Kept thinking to myself that something has to be behind all this. I am a scientist, and everything I learn is just mindblowing. The intricacy and cooperation in the universe is just mindblowingly amazing.

There are forces, tendencies etc that cause things to operate as they do. There is this tremendous cooperation of matter, energy etc. It is beyond our power to control, it is before us and will be here after us, it is involved in everything that happens, nothing functions outside of it, etc. In that sense, in all the non anthropomorphic definitions of the divine, it fits the bill. So I tried on the theory (that is how scientists operate) that those forces etc are the divine. Nothing is supernatural, it all just IS.

I don’t claim to be able to explain everything, or answer every argument. But so far, in my life, I have found a definition of divine that has required no contradictions or bizarre explanations to explain its behavior. And I have really grown in my spirituality and the fruits of such in my life.

The dichotomies and improbabilities of trying to make “God” fit into what I observed in the world used to drive me mad. I felt like an insane person, looking at blue and calling it red because someone told me it was red. I couldn’t stop knowing it was blue.

Now blue is blue, and red is red. And I don’t have to come up with any culturally acceptable explanation as to why. They are what they are. So far this hasn’t failed me. It has served me better than any previous belief system. Really hard things have happened, and there are no dichotomous explanations I have to try to swallow. No matter what, I am in the web of the divine. A divine which truly takes care of things, and I am part of it. That is really amazing. I am completely ultimately secure, because I cannot be seperated from the divine.

So, ultimately , no one proved the existence of the divine to me, I just recognized it and said “hey, that must be what people have been talking about all these years” and then when I tested that out, it worked. So life, experience, and yes, my own personal searching got me to where I am.

Most theists all me an atheist, because I don’t believe in a deity. Most atheists call me a theist because I use the word divine. I don’t care what they call me, I’m just happy to have a truth to hold on to that works.

I always keep myself open to examine new evidence. I don’t in any way think I have this thing figured out. But I need to see and experience things for myself. So someone telling me their God is the real god because something happened to so and so wont do it, I would have to try the theory out in my own life and see how it played out.

I have done this with several versions of god and deity and so far, none have proven themselves real.

cheddar

 

[Krebsbach]

Everstruggling:

Hey everyone,

Some fantastic points on this message so far.

I’m somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic. Here is what argument would convince me:

1. Define God - What exactly are we talking about? Man in the sky? First mover? Love? Spirit? I don’t believe in the man in the sky; I don’t understand what Spirit is; I don’t really care if there is a first mover if that is all I know about it; and I do believe in love. I love lots of people. I’d be looking for a specific definition.

Dear Everstruggling,

I agree it is helpful to start with a definition. twould prevent so much silly and useless discussion.

When I was younger I was quite taken with Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne’s approach to theism. After studying them atheism and agnosticism never again made any sense.

cordially

Karl

 

[Krebsbach]

elwedriddsche:

A hidden premise of the initial question is that proving the existence of god will implicitely lead to worship of that god.

All the so-called proofs of god’s existence lead the unbeliever to the Deist god at most.

Hey El,

What do you make of Everstruggling’s suggestion that we attempt a definition of God first?

cordially

Karl

 

[Krebsbach]

Hartshorne, for one, finds that worshipfulness, as well as unsurpassbility, is one of the necessary attributes of God.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ELWED

*All the so-called proofs of god’s existence lead the unbeliever to the Deist god at most.
That would be so only if you want it to be so. If you are a deist, you are saying that this Creator went to the trouble of creating this vast and complex universe, but then had no personal interest in its fate. This argument defies our own logic and humanity. It asks us to believe something improbable, while at the same time assuming (as most people believe) that we should only believe in the probable. It asks us to believe that God had enough mind to create the universe, but He had not enough heart to nurture it.

Again, I return to my earlier thesis: the atheist does not want to believe in a personal God or any other kind. The deist also does not want to believe in a personal God. Find out why the atheist and the deist are so dead set against a Father of us all and you will find out why they are atheists and deists.

Read Paul Vitz’s FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ELWED

At the end of the day, “I’m right and you’re wrong” is a good recipe for a heated exchange, but not so effective in swaying opinions.

Who said “I’m right and you’re wrong?” Where?

But isn’t that what you might expect to be the attitude of anyone participating in an apologetics forum? What other attitude should we have? How would we sway someone else’s opinion by saying, “I could be wrong and you could be right?”

 

[elwedriddsche]

Gilbert Keith:

Again, I return to my earlier thesis: the atheist does not want to believe in a personal God or any other kind.

Since you keep repeating this until you get the answer you want, let me say this: We are all entitled to our opinions. I find that particular statement condescending and presumptuous and from my point of view, it doesn’t pass the laugh test. I will not waste my time to discuss or debate it further.

Who said “I’m right and you’re wrong?” Where?

Unless I’m missing something, you express it clearly it in almost every post of yours that addresses atheism.

But isn’t that what you might expect to be the attitude of anyone participating in an apologetics forum? What other attitude should we have?

My expectations regarding religious forums in general and apologetic ones in particular are consistently met.

By definition, I call this attitude defensive.

How would we sway someone else’s opinion by saying, “I could be wrong and you could be right?”

If that is your true attitude instead of a rhethoric tactic, you are hiding it well in the posts of yours that I’ve read. Some examples:

“the atheist does not want to believe in a personal God or any other kind”

“I’ve never heard an atheist in this forum say anything more important than that God does not exist.”

“Any attempt to defend atheism is an attack on God.”

Is this indicative of a mindset that allows for error on your part and validity of the other side?

 

[elwedriddsche]

Krebsbach:

Hey El,

What do you make of Everstruggling’s suggestion that we attempt a definition of God first?

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.

 

[Maranatha]

2. Predict an action that only God can perform - I’m talking about a concrete, miraculous, and personally observed by myself example. I’m not going to be as impressed by what happened to a 9th Century monk as I will be if tonight, before I go to sleep, I see the roof of my house open and Jesus appears before me telling me to repent. I’m also not talking about something untestable like a person telling me, “Pray for forgiveness, and you will be forgiven.” It might be true, but how would I know?

1. The action happens
2. Repeat this action more than once

If someone can do this, I will believe. I won’t change the goal posts, won’t deny what I saw, or try to explain why it doesn’t count. I’ll accept I was wrong.

Here is one experiment you can do right now. Do you know the difference between right and wrong? The formal argument is:

The Argument from Conscience

The simple, intuitive point of the argument from conscience is that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good, and this absolute obligation could come only from God. Thus everyone knows God, however obscurely, by this moral intuition, which we usually call conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in the soul.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ELWED

*“the atheist does not want to believe in a personal God or any other kind”

“I’ve never heard an atheist in this forum say anything more important than that God does not exist.”*

“Any attempt to defend atheism is an attack on God.”

Is this indicative of a mindset that allows for error on your part and validity of the other side?

You quote me correctly. What is your point? Do you think Catholics are supposed to allow the “validity of the other side,” namely the notion that there is no God?

And do you think that the following statement from the Psalms should be stricken from Scripture, or not allowed in this forum, because an atheist might find it “indicative of a mindset”?

" … the fool in his heart says there is no God." Psalms 14:1

This sentence surely is indicative of a mindset that knows it is in possession of the truth. And I think it is fair to quote any passage from Scripture in this forum, even if someone disagrees with Catholic Scriptures.

 

[elwedriddsche]

Gilbert Keith:

You quote me correctly. What is your point? Do you think Catholics are supposed to allow the “validity of the other side,” namely the notion that there is no God?

I gave you more credit than warranted by misreading this

"How would we sway someone else’s opinion by saying, “I could be wrong and you could be right?”

to mean that you might approach a conversation with people of different beliefs from a position of mutual respect. Instead, all you have to bring to the table is that you are in possession of The Truth and everybody not subscribing to it is wrong. For the purposes of this thread, this attitude is counterproductive. It is emphatically not the way to convince people that do not share your beliefs, because all you achieve is to provoke one of two reactions: antagonism or indifference.

But like I said, you are entitled to your opinions.