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

[AnAtheist]

Lazerlike42:

I think you’re being sarcastic or joking around.

You don’t say.

The point is that it can be explained naturally: the tree happened to grow so that it looked that way. One of the things the Church requires before something is called a miracle is that it must not be able to be explained by any natural phenomenom (like a piece of bread turning into a piece of heart muscle).

Here is a natural explanation: Linoli was given a heart muscle sample and was told it was a piece of bread.

 

[Krebsbach]

Mornin AA,

Regarding how one would make a rational argument for theism.

Twould be nice to find the universally accepted and axiomatic premise connnected by a flawless chain of logic to God Exists.

Hartshorne makes a pretty good attempt at it, I think, in this sense. He recognizes the need to begin from sound metaphysical propositions.

He also makes the helpful suggestion that, in discussion like these, both sides of the argument examine their underlying and assumed premises. Any theistic argument rests on fundamental assumptions. But so do criticisms of theistic arguments. What are they?

 

[SamCA]

Gilbert Keith:

This is pure theory

No, there is hard physical evidence involved. Photons really do behave this way. You can watch them. If you perform the experiment, you too can see photons interact with other photons that, as near as anyone can tell, aren’t actually there.

Our explanations for this are largely hypothetical, yes, but there’s definitely a concrete physical phenomenon occuring which requires some sort of explanation.

So why shouldn’t the atheist give God a possibility? For that matter, why shouldn’t science give God a possibility,

There is physical evidence that may be a sign of multiple universes. Or it may be a sign of a different interpretation of quantum mechanics, or something else entirely we haven’t worked out yet, but my point is that it is still based in empirical evidence.

When there’s some empirical evidence for which God is the best explanation that fits the data, science will turn to the God hypothesis. Alas, so far no such evidence has manifested.

and why should creationism be taught in biology classrooms along with evolution?

Frankly, because evolution is one the most thoroughly proven facts of the physical world, with evidence coming from every field of biological science as well as from geology and paleontology, while creationism has absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever except for the creation accounts of some wandering desert nomads.

 

[SamCA]

Among other things, one of the tasks I perform for a living is locating scientific articles. Usually it takes a fair quantity of money to get your hands on an old, foreign one like this, but if anyone feels like paying for it, here’s how they can go about getting the above cited article.

First, here’s the full citation, from Pubmed.com :

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=4950729&query_hl=1

So we know it is, at least, a real article.

The article may be ordered from the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information, found here:

cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cisti_e.html

(Although keep in mind, it’s in Italian, so if you don’t speak the language, you probably don’t want to drop the thirty odd bucks to order it.)

 

[Maranatha]

SamCA:

Frankly, because evolution is one the most thoroughly proven facts of the physical world, with evidence coming from every field of biological science as well as from geology and paleontology, while creationism has absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever except for the creation accounts of some wandering desert nomads.

For someone with such a scientific mind I would think you would be more specific and accurate. There is an abundance of evidence for micro-evolution. There is significantly less evidence for the Theory of Natural Selection - There are large gaps in the progression of inter-species macro evolution. There is no conclusive evidence that life and/or consciousness evolved by blind chance or intelligent design.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

SamCA

*When there’s some empirical evidence for which God is the best explanation that fits the data, science will turn to the God hypothesis. Alas, so far no such evidence has manifested. *

I know you believe this, but I don’t. When evidence of the Big Bang started rolling in (“Let there be Light”) did scientists rush to find confirmation in Genesis, or did they start looking immediately for an “out” strategy. The first “out” was the Big Crunch. When that didn’t pan out, they went to a multiverse. Anything but God!

Which means scientists of the atheistic type won’t find empirical; evidence for God simply because they don’t want to find it …

Moreover, do you think this “theory” of multiverses will ever be provable with serious evidence of the type scientists demand … in other words … show me? How do we get outside our universe to observe another?

With difficulty! Whew!

P.S. When you ask for empirical evidence of God, don’t you really mean “show me”? But by definition God cannot be shown because he is the creator of time, energy, matter and space, and not subject to its laws. God is pure Spirit. Should we expect to find him through a telescope lens or lounging on a petri dish?

Is that what you mean by empirical evidence? Or could you give me an example of empirical evidence that would satisfy an atheistic scientist?

 

[Chris_W]

SamCA:

Frankly, because evolution is one the most thoroughly proven facts of the physical world, with evidence coming from every field of biological science as well as from geology and paleontology, while creationism has absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever except for the creation accounts of some wandering desert nomads.

C’mon Sam, even the avid (and some well credentialed)evolutionists who have devoted so many hours to debates with creationists in these forums, presenting all kinds of scientific evidence, will admit evolution is not fact. To be a fact, it would need to be without the possibility of an alternative explanation, which is most certainly not the case. The empiracle evidence presented by evolutionists may be valid, but the interpretation of that evidence is left fo the best judgment of those examining the evidence. The conclusions drawn by evolutionists are a far cry from proven fact.

The theory of evolution is a grouping of numerous theories, each dependent on yet other theories, which MAY be possible based on emprical evidence and observations. It is a house of cards, which for now seems to stand (at least in the view of many). But it is not proven, nor is it fact, nor does it rule out the possibility of God.

Yet you feel justified ciriticizing others herein for unscientific statements about science? Your statement is absurd, the likes of which will quickly remove any possibility of productive dialogue in this thread.

 

[SamCA]

Maranatha:

For someone with such a scientific mind I would think you would be more specific and accurate. There is an abundance of evidence for micro-evolution. There is significantly less evidence for the Theory of Natural Selection - There are large gaps in the progression of inter-species macro evolution.

If you take a quick browse through this site you will find that there is observational evidence of natural speciation. That’s right, we’ve actually seen organisms evolve into new species so genetically distinct from their parents that they are no longer capable of breeding with each other.

There is no conclusive evidence that life and/or consciousness evolved by blind chance or intelligent design.

There is, however, a staggeringly massive mountain of evidence that species change over time into other species, and that the species we have today arose from different species in the past.

Whether evolution was guided by natural laws, God, or aliens from the Zeta Reticuli system, I couldn’t tell you. What I can tell you is that every scrap of evidence we’ve found, from every applicable field of science, confirms that evolution happened. And as such, that’s what we ought to teach in our classes.

 

[SamCA]

Gilbert Keith:

I know you believe this, but I don’t. When evidence of the Big Bang started rolling in (“Let there be Light”) did scientists rush to find confirmation in Genesis, or did they start looking immediately for an “out” strategy. The first “out” was the Big Crunch. When that didn’t pan out, they went to a multiverse. Anything but God!

What? Listen, I realize it’s impossible to say this without sounding accusatory, but it’s hard to avoid coming back to the obvious fact that you clearly have no real understanding of any of the things you’re talking about. And some of the time, hey, no worries, I don’t understand quantum mechanics and astrophysics all that well myself – it’s a bit beyond me, to be honest. But it’s becoming clear that you haven’t done even a bit of cursory research. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics did not come about in response to the Big Bang theory, and certainly not in response to some desperate attempt to remove God from the equation following the advent of the Big Bang theory. Honestly, I don’t even know where you’re getting this from.

The theory of the multiverse from certain specific, observed experimental data involving the exotic behavior of matter and energy at a quantum level. (And I think you’ll find that even if you reject the multiverse explanation for this behavior, the other potential explanations are just as bizarre and incomprehensible, because it turns out that at the quantum level, reality works really strangely. But I digress.)

I genuinely don’t mean to sound insulting or accusatory, but it’s clear that you just don’t know very much about this material, which makes having any kind of lucid conversation about it difficult.

If you’d like to learn more about these things, there are some good books that endeavor to explain scientific concepts and the progression of modern scientific theories in language a layman like you or I can understand.

But as it stands now, you’re clearly operating based purely on your preconceptions about how these theories form.

Moreover, do you think this “theory” of multiverses will ever be provable with serious evidence of the type scientists demand … in other words … show me? How do we get outside our universe to observe another?

With difficulty! Whew!

There’s actually work being done as we speak on building quantum computers that would function by performing calculations simultaneously in many different possible universes, rather than one calculation after another in this one. The practical effect is that you could perform a nigh infinite number of calculations virtually instantaneously, but on the theoretical level it would also provide fairly tangible evidence for the theory.

Assuming they ever actually make a quantum computer, of course.

(Note: If anyone understands quantum physics better than I do, and I’m mangling this stuff, please correct me. If I can dish it out I’d better be able to take it, too.)

P.S. When you ask for empirical evidence of God, don’t you really mean “show me”? But by definition God cannot be shown because he is the creator of time, energy, matter and space, and not subject to its laws. God is pure Spirit. Should we expect to find him through a telescope lens or lounging on a petri dish?

If something has absolutely no discernable effect upon the universe in which we exist, then for all practical purposes it does not exist.

If something does affect the universe, then it leaves evidence behind. If God exists, and God interacts with the universe, there should at least be evidence of that interaction. God’s fingerprints, if you will.

Is that what you mean by empirical evidence? Or could you give me an example of empirical evidence that would satisfy an atheistic scientist?

Carl Sagan came up with a good one – encoded, meaningful messages written into the fundamental mathematical rules that govern the universe. The one he came up with was a message buried deep in the infinitely long number Pi.

That would be indisputable evidence that an intelligent force designed the universe.

 

[SamCA]

Chris W:

C’mon Sam, even the avid (and some well credentialed)evolutionists who have devoted so many hours to debates with creationists in these forums, presenting all kinds of scientific evidence, will admit evolution is not fact.

Maybe the ones on these forums do. For professional scientists, there is no debate. Every single piece of evidence we’ve found for decades supports evolution. Professional scientists no more debate whether or not evolution occured than they debate the existence of gravity. It is simply accepted as a fact, proven (independantly!) by the geological record, anatomical study, actual observation in the lab and in nature, and perhaps most compellingly, in the genetic code of every organism on Earth.

I want to be more clear with that last bit. As you know, evolution was proposed back before we could do any kind of genome mapping, based primarily on fossil evidence and the study of the anatomy of living animals. Based on that, scientists were able to construct a tentative family tree, in which they began studying things like bone structure to trace heredity from one species back to its antecedents, and determine which modern species were related to each other.

Then we had the genetic revolution. Now, we can actually study the DNA of an animal to determine its heredity, and how closely related one species is to another, without even looking at their actual bones and whatnot. It was, basically, a way to go back and check their work – to find out if the predictions they made based on evolutionary theory actually bore out.

They did. Study of the actual DNA of plant and animal life on Earth fit the predictions of evolutionary theory to a T.

Doesn’t that seem rather an outstanding coincidence, if it’s all a lot of bunk?

Now, there is debate over the exact mechanism of evolution. We don’t know all the details of how it happened. But that it happened isn’t debated by anyone except creationists – and oddly enough, the only people who are creationist are the ones whose religion tells them so.

To be a fact, it would need to be without the possibility of an alternative explanation, which is most certainly not the case.

There is no alternative explanation that fits all the evidence, short of “Everything just magically came into existence spontaneously, with all of the evidence conveniently arranged to look like evolution occured.”

Which, to be fair, can’t be disproven. But then again, we also can’t disprove that this event happened five minutes ago, and our memories before that point are all fake.

The empiracle evidence presented by evolutionists may be valid, but the interpretation of that evidence is left fo the best judgment of those examining the evidence. The conclusions drawn by evolutionists are a far cry from proven fact.

Evolution is as well proven as it is possible to prove anything without actually building a time machine and travelling back to watch it for yourself. It is as solid a scientific theory as the theory of aeronotics, or the theory of gravitation.

And to bring this back on topic – If you’re looking to prove the existence of God to an atheist, you’d better leave out the creationist stuff. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the actual science involved (and atheists are more likely than most to have that), will find such arguments unconvincing, and depending on how tactful they are, amusing. It will hurt your case.

 

[Mijoy2]

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.

.

Just a point Everstuggling, for whatever it may be worth. I’ve often contimplated miracles in much the same way you do here, in the above quote. I too am in some respects (especially regarding miracles) ever - struggling.

However when I do have this debate within myself, a point for the affirmative is;

just who are making these claims and what is thier incentive?
I find it difficult to come up with a good reason why Thomas Aquanis, Sister Faustina, Padre Pio etc would be the author of a hoax, or for that matter, the recipient of a delusion? Of course the latter could true but they were otherwise quite intelligent and discerning. They are either a liar, crazy or witnessed miracles.

As for the others; aliens, sasquatches, monsters, ghosts, it’s easier to imagine an incentive for a hoax, or a delusion.

JMO

 

[john_doran]

SamCA:

If something does affect the universe, then it leaves evidence behind. If God exists, and God interacts with the universe, there should at least be evidence of that interaction. God’s fingerprints, if you will.

Carl Sagan came up with a good one – encoded, meaningful messages written into the fundamental mathematical rules that govern the universe. The one he came up with was a message buried deep in the infinitely long number Pi.

That would be indisputable evidence that an intelligent force designed the universe.

but this wouldn’t be indisputable at all. the alternative explanation would the same one that atheists and agnostics provide to the anthropic principle: that the encoded message should be the result of random, blind chance is certainly astronomically unlikely, but not impossible…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

SamCA

*If something does affect the universe, then it leaves evidence behind. If God exists, and God interacts with the universe, there should at least be evidence of that interaction. God’s fingerprints, if you will.
*
I don’t think you’ve proven anything here. You’ve admitted to your own ignorance on quantum mechanics, so how can you do anything but cite what you’ve read, which isn’t proven either, though we see a lot of “if” and “maybe” and “possibly/perhaps” everywhere and all the time among all the theorists who are looking for any explanation but God…

I’ve done some substantial research in this area, and it’s clear you may know some physics but (don’t take this personally) you don’t seem to know that the Big Bang was proposed long before “multiverse” theory was developed to overcome the “fingerprints” of God left by the Big Bang, not to mention Intelligent Design (originally proposed by Isac Newton among others in the 18th century) , etc.

It’s as I said. The finger prints of God are there, but an atheist will never see them because he doesn’t want to. And at present the multiverse theory is the only “out” the atheist can come up with … that the universe we are in was spawned by another rather than by God almighty.

 

[Chris_W]

SamCA:

Maybe the ones on these forums do. For professional scientists, there is no debate.

Completely untrue.

SamCA:

Every single piece of evidence we’ve found for decades supports evolution.

In the opinion of evolutionists.

SamCA:

Professional scientists no more debate whether or not evolution occured than they debate the existence of gravity.

Completely untrue

SamCA:

It is simply accepted as a fact, proven (independantly!) by the geological record, anatomical study, actual observation in the lab and in nature, and perhaps most compellingly, in the genetic code of every organism on Earth.

I agree, it is accepted as fact…by evolutionists. Because it is accepted as fact by evolutionists does not make it, fact Sam. If you want to believe it go ahead, but this is not a thread debating evolution. Go try your confidence out in those forums, if you like.

SamCA:

As you know, evolution was proposed back before we could do any kind of genome mapping…

Thank you for the summary of the evolution of evolution (Yahn).

SamCA:

But that it happened isn’t debated by anyone except creationists – and oddly enough, the only people who are creationist are the ones whose religion tells them so.

Interesting. So the only ones who disagree with the theory are those who disagree with the theory? Profound. And by the way you are wrong again. There are many unreligious creationists.

SamCA:

There is no alternative explanation that fits all the evidence

Another incorrect yet intersting statement. Be careful though. There are those herein who object to the inference that one must provide an answer to important questions.

SamCA:

And to bring this back on topic – If you’re looking to prove the existence of God to an atheist, you’d better leave out the creationist stuff.

I have not used the creation vs evolution debate in any attempt for conversion, especially in this thread. Nor do I make your mistake of intellectual arrogance, as it also has no positive effect. I have merely responded to your rediculous and inflamatory remarks about evolution.

 

[john_doran]

SamCA:

Maybe the ones on these forums do. For professional scientists, there is no debate. Every single piece of evidence we’ve found for decades supports evolution. Professional scientists no more debate whether or not evolution occured than they debate the existence of gravity. It is simply accepted as a fact, proven (independantly!) by the geological record, anatomical study, actual observation in the lab and in nature, and perhaps most compellingly, in the genetic code of every organism on Earth.

even if you were right about this, it would be no more important to the truth of the theory than the sudden conversion of everyone in the world except you to islam would be evidence for you of the truth of that religion.

SamCA:

Now, there is debate over the exact mechanism of evolution. We don’t know all the details of how it happened. But that it happened isn’t debated by anyone except creationists – and oddly enough, the only people who are creationist are the ones whose religion tells them so.

well, if one of the possible mechanisms involves some kind of theistic guidance, then i would say that such a theory is far closer to creationism than it is to (neo-)darwinian evolution.

SamCA:

Evolution is as well proven as it is possible to prove anything without actually building a time machine and travelling back to watch it for yourself. It is as solid a scientific theory as the theory of aeronotics, or the theory of gravitation.

do you honestly believe this? that the theory of evolution has as much evidence for it as, say, quantum mechanics?

 

[Chris_W]

Everstruggling:

Okay, but why is faith so important? .

An excellent question. And a difficult one. Faith has three aspects from my perspective. 1) Trust. 2) a conscious decision. 3) a gift from God.

Preface to my answer: I realize I am speaking here in terms perhaps not persuasive to an atheist or agnostic, but the only way I can answer your question is to provide my logic, which necessarily includes my theology, k? I hope the reaction you will have will be to decide, not whether you accept the theology of my religion, but whether or not my answer makes logical sense. Is it rational thinking? (temporarily removing the issue of whether or not a person already believes in God).

Okay. Your question is great because the premise of it is that faith might just be important (hence the question “Why?”). The Bible, as you learned in your youth no doubt, teaches us that if we had enough faith we could move mountains. But faith is requiried as a prerequisite to God’s interaction in our lives. There are a couple aspects of this:

Faith in part is a decision. It is requires the ability to decide one way or another. Love is the same way. People fall in and out of love and have little control over either. But true love, lasting love, is a conscious decision to love, and it therefore doesn’t fall prey to the environment to which it is exposed. When people make this decision, the certainty of that love is felt as well as given. There is confidence in the relationship.

Now then, if the God of Christianity exists (granted in this thread that is merely an “if”), and if the God of Christianity says faith is required before the power of God will be evidenced through us. Then we can uderstand that He can more fully use us as his instruments (by answering prayer requests, etc) when we have faith.

Here’s a problem though: Faith is also in part a gift from God. It is not something we develop on our own. And to those who do not have faith, the Bible tells us all this stuff “is foolishness”. So how’s a person to acquire the gift of faith, when I just said that faith is required to (more fully) experience God?

There is no way around the fact that at some point there is a “leap”. I truely believe there is a convergence of evidences which suffice to lead a person to accept the idea of a creator. However, the intellect does not necessarily lead the heart. Usually it is the other way around in my experience. The leap of faith must be made though.

One must say something like “okay, God, I am going to trust that you are there. I am going to trust that you love me, and that you want and know what is best for me” and then pray for His gift of faith…“create in me oh God a sense of certainty so that I can trust you”.

Unfortunately it sounds like you’ve kinda been there done that, Everstruggling. I cannot pretend to know the mind of God so I cannot give you an answer for that. Perhaps your prayer petitions were grounded more in testing God rather than of out of trust? Perhaps there are other factors that have prevented you from seeing His interaction in your life? I cannot answer that.

I have some suggestions for you though. But before I give those, I would need to know if you WANT to know God. Not merely if you are wondering, or would consider the possibility…rather, if you WANT to know God. If you do, I’ll make my suggestions (whether here or in a private message, at your discretion).

I enjoy your challenging questions. I hope my response at least provides a different perspective for you.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Mijoy2]

Short of a private revelation or the second coming, athiests and theists alike will never have what would amount to be proof that would be defined as conclusive (certainly not in the mind of the athiest. In the mind of some thiests we have that proof but it is not accepted universally).

However one difference I notice between the athiest and the thiest is that the athiest seems to only accept what he can measure. He believes the evolutionary transformation/ creature which is himself, inhereted by this evolution the power to comprehend all there is to comprehend. The thiest accepts the notion that the Truth of how we came to be may be something presently out of his grasp, beyond his human comprehension.

Of course this goes along with the notion of pride and humility.

 

[Chris_W]

Hi Everstrugging, you made a few points in your earlier post, so for clarity, I am breaking up my repsonses, k?

Everstruggling:

…yes, I think it would still be hard to have faith even if God were to lift the roof off my house. Pharoh had the sea turn red, and didn’t believe. Jesus called Peter out from the boat, and even then it wasn’t enough for Peter to make it to Jesus’ side.

I fear you may be confusing faith that God exists versus trying to understand God. They are very different I think. Or at least I think they sould be considered separately. If God lifted to roof you may still not understand the problems you experience in life, but you would certainly have enough evidence to know He exists.

Similarly, neither the pharoah nor Peter doubted God’s existence after these miracles. The pharoah merely refused to follow what he knew was right (for whatever reasons). And Peter merely lacked the quantity of faith that was required to stay afloat.

Everstruggling:

Husbands and wives live their whole lives with each other, and still can have doubts about the other. Satre once pointed out that even in the face of absolute proof that there is a god, each individual has to decide if they will worship him or fight against him.

Indeed. Both statements are true. I do not see how this relates to acknowledging the existence of God though.

Will many Christians (if not most) at some point even if in some very small way, have doubts? Yep. Will many who know God exists decide not to seek or follow Him? Yep.

Everstruggling:

I’m not asking for proof every step of the way, just a “good faith” gesture to get me started.

A reasonable request, and a request for which I am praying.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[SamCA]

john doran:

do you honestly believe this? that the theory of evolution has as much evidence for it as, say, quantum mechanics?

Yes.

Let me state this again: We have watched speciation occur. There are multiple observed instances in which genetic change in a breeding group over time actually caused the group to differentiate so much from others of its (former) species that they could no longer breed with each other – they had become different, genetically incompatible organisms.

A great deal of quantum mechanics, as noted already, is still largely hypothetical. (Although certainly not all; your PC wouldn’t work if quantum mechanics wasn’t at least near the mark.)

By contrast, we’ve seen evolution in action. This is macroevolution, the bit creationists always claim is impossible. We’ve seen it happen. Repeatedly.

 

[john_doran]

SamCA:

A great deal of quantum mechanics, as noted already, is still largely hypothetical. (Although certainly not all; your PC wouldn’t work if quantum mechanics wasn’t at least near the mark.)

this is not quite right - there are certainly a number of competing interpretations of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, but the mechanics of the theory itself are cut-and-dry, and have never been even remotely approached in terms of their success. i mean, we’re talking about accurate predictions of measurements in some case to about 7 or 8 decimal places…

SamCA:

By contrast, we’ve seen evolution in action. This is macroevolution, the bit creationists always claim is impossible. We’ve seen it happen. Repeatedly.

i disagree. and your talk.origins website offers pretty poor evidence, if that’s what you’re relying on.