If you had concrete evidence of God's existence

[HerCrazierHalf]

Let’s say that one day you obtained proof of God’s existence. For this thread the form doesn’t matter, but this evidence is:

1. Easily and quickly understood by all who see it.
2. Convinces 100% of those view it. Requires no “faith” to accept the conclusion.
3. Reveals previously unknown details about the nature of God and maybe some already taken on faith sufficiently enough to determine the “correct” religion/denomination.

Would you share evidence? What do you think the effects would be on humanity, good and bad? And would this harm the faithful by transforming faith* into knowledge?

*Faith, the belief in something with little or no evidence.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Let’s say that one day you obtained proof of God’s existence. For this thread the form doesn’t matter, but this evidence is:

1. Easily and quickly understood by all who see it.
2. Convinces 100% of those view it. Requires no “faith” to accept the conclusion.
3. Reveals previously unknown details about the nature of God and maybe some already taken on faith sufficiently enough to determine the “correct” religion/denomination.

Would you share evidence? What do you think the effects would be on humanity, good and bad? And would this harm the faithful by transforming faith* into knowledge?

*Faith, the belief in something with little or no evidence.

your definition of faith is not the definition of faith. The very reason that Catholics have faith is because we have evidence. the reason I have my faith s because I am a reasonable creature. I am sure that my friends and family would beg to differ on that. That’s not the point, you’re making a baseless assertion

 

[adamhovey1988]

I also feel obligated to point out that you making a mistaken assumption, the assumption that we don’t already have evidence that God exists. I never use the Bible in a debate with someone who does not consider themselves a Believer until they bring up the Bible. I think many people make the mistaken assumption that we Catholics believe and God because the Bible says God exists well if you don’t accept the authority of the Bible then you’re not going to accept that explanation of God. let’s use this: one reason alone. you exist don’t you? Do you have emotions? Do you think it’s wrong to murder another human being? And if it is wrong to murder another human being why is that so? Because if if it is wrong to murdee another human being why is that so? You cannot have a law without a lawgiver.

 

[Vico]

Let’s say that one day you obtained proof of God’s existence. For this thread the form doesn’t matter, but this evidence is:

1. Easily and quickly understood by all who see it.
2. Convinces 100% of those view it. Requires no “faith” to accept the conclusion.
3. Reveals previously unknown details about the nature of God and maybe some already taken on faith sufficiently enough to determine the “correct” religion/denomination.

Would you share evidence? What do you think the effects would be on humanity, good and bad? And would this harm the faithful by transforming faith* into knowledge?

*Faith, the belief in something with little or no evidence.

Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. The angels knew God and did still some of them fell. Here is a scripture to ponder. Luke 16:19-31, this is Dives speaking from hades:

27 And he said:

Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren, 28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments.
29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.
31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.​

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Ok… well that was unexpected. Intended for that part be to rather neutral.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
a*(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God*(2): belief in the traditionaldoctrinesof a religion
b*(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof*(2): complete trust

Though I must say this exchange has taught me a few things.

Edit: I suppose I should have clarified faith in that context applying to some aspects, not the entirety of the Catholicism our Christianity. Perhaps a teaching or two that is difficult to understand but is believed anyway on trust in God or the Church.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Let’s say that one day you obtained proof of God’s existence. For this thread the form doesn’t matter, but this evidence is:

1. Easily and quickly understood by all who see it.
2. Convinces 100% of those view it. Requires no “faith” to accept the conclusion.
3. Reveals previously unknown details about the nature of God and maybe some already taken on faith sufficiently enough to determine the “correct” religion/denomination.

Would you share evidence? What do you think the effects would be on humanity, good and bad? And would this harm the faithful by transforming faith* into knowledge?

*Faith, the belief in something with little or no evidence.

In order to have some proof that satisfies all 3 of those criteria is nearly impossible for any philosophical or scientific proof of anything never mind a proof of God. Consider a proof for the theory of Evolution that satisfies those 3 criteria. Does such proof exist? No, I don’t think so. If it did everyone would have no choice but to accept it. The only thing that could really satisfy all those 3 criteria in order for something to move from faith to proper knowledge is direct observation of the thing itself. I know for instance that I am typing on my phone right now because I can see myself doing it. I have proper knowledge of it. You on the other hand do not know that I am typing on my phone as you cannot see me doing it. You may however believe me when I tell you that I am. that is not the same as knowing it.

Yet, the question is, are some things worth believing even if we don’t have proper knowledge of them through direct observation? Are they reasonable to believe? Being limited creatures as we are we really have no choice but to believe in what seems most plausible to us. The alternative is to be skeptical about everything, but then that really gets you nowhere, and ultimately you would have to doubt your own skepticism in order to be consistent. So it contradicts itself.

To answer your question the only thing that could satisfy all 3 of those criteria is if God appeared before every person on earth at once. We Christians already believe that this will happen when Jesus returns. And we know to some degree from the Scriptures what the effects on the world will be. People will be face to face with their Creator, which also means being face to face with Truth itself, and finding oneself on the side of that Truth or not.

 

[pianistclare]

What do you mean “IF”?

 

[Wesrock]

If I could present something that was “undoubtable” to the world, of course I would. As to the effects? Well, men and women are fickle creatures tainted by original sin, but that’s true whether Christian, Hindu, or atheist. There would probably be a major cultural reaction in response, but things would settle down. I think it would improve faith rather than undermine it.

I should be clear that I find philosophical arguments for theism to be on much stronger legs than philosophical arguments for atheism or materialism, and therefore the rational position to take, and I think it’s this point others are jumping on. Still, I thought I’d answer your question.

 

[Wesrock]

If I could present something that was “undoubtable” to the world, of course I would. As to the effects? Well, men and women are fickle creatures tainted by original sin, but that’s true whether Christian, Hindu, or atheist. There would probably be a major cultural reaction in response, but things would settle down. I think it would improve faith rather than undermine it.

I should be clear that I find philosophical arguments for theism to be on much stronger legs than philosophical arguments for atheism or materialism, and therefore the rational position to take, and I think it’s this point some others are jumping on. Still, I thought I’d answer your question.

 

[seagal]

a*(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God*(2): belief in the traditionaldoctrinesof a religion
b*(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof*(2): complete trust

Regarding the (b) definition, no proof is not the same thing as no evidence. No one has ever seen a black hole, but scientists have plenty of evidence for them so they have faith that they actually do exist. In fact science relies a lot on faith to make its discoveries. No one has ever discovered the “missing link” either but nobody doubts that there actually was one. Whether one actually existed is the topic for another debate, I’m just pointing out that scientists has absolute faith in something they have no proof of.

 

[Aedan382]

What do you mean “IF”?

I love this answer. Exactly how I feel every time I am at mass. I am in my 5th week of the RCIA process. Every single time, when we all go up to receive (just a blessing for me… until Easter!) I am overwhelmed with a feeling of peace. When I had been to church services of other denominations in my life I never felt this way. It seems trite when I say it aloud, or write it, nevertheless, I believe. When I say “amen” it is not just the word I am supposed to say.

I truly believe.

Sad for me to think “Where has this been all my life” and the answer is : It has always been there.

 

[Wesrock]

The original question the topic creator wanted answered seems to boil down to this: If you came across something that would undoubtedly convince EVERYONE that God exists, would you make it public? What would the consequences be? Would the world of humanity be a better place?

I thinks she just meant to stress having something that would convince everyone. Something that would satisfy all skeptics and doubters beyond all doubt. The issue of our present state of evidence was not meant to be the point of the topic.

 

[mikekle]

well, look at the times when Jesus walked the earth, he grew such large crowds of followers due to the miracles he was doing, feeding of the 5000, healing lepers, bringing people back from the dead, etc, all done right in front of their eyes, if he had not done any of these things, and instead tried to convince them all there was a man 2000 yrs prior that was even more powerful, what would the outcome had been?

I guess my point is, if all the people back then had to see it to believe it, why would our times be expected to be any different…and this is where faith comes into it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

She is using a standard definition of faith, from a dictionary.

faith
fāTH/

noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

.

Two things:

1. Her definition was not the same as your second definition. She wrote: “Faith, the belief in something with little or no evidence,” which implies absence of evidence. Your second definition says nothing about available evidence, but rather shifts focus for the grounds of belief onto God or doctrines directly. This logically entails nothing about absence of evidence BECAUSE it permits an abundance of evidence to exist side by side with a strong belief in God but that the belief is grounded in God himself rather than in the evidence. That does not mean evidence is necessarily lacking, just that it isn’t the grounds upon which belief is founded. I love and trust and believe in my wife because of who she is, not because of secondary evidence – she, herself, is the evidence upon which my faith in her is grounded. It isn’t grounded on extrinsic facts.
2. Why is a dictionary definition of what faith means even the standard we should be using? Faith has a very particular meaning in Christianity. What the dictionary means by faith or what atheists think Christians mean are irrelevant. What Christ, the Church and Christianity means by faith is what is important here.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Let’s say that one day you obtained proof of God’s existence. For this thread the form doesn’t matter, but this evidence is:

1. Easily and quickly understood by all who see it.
2. Convinces 100% of those view it. Requires no “faith” to accept the conclusion.
3. Reveals previously unknown details about the nature of God and maybe some already taken on faith sufficiently enough to determine the “correct” religion/denomination.

Would you share evidence? What do you think the effects would be on humanity, good and bad? And would this harm the faithful by transforming faith* into knowledge?

*Faith, the belief in something with little or no evidence.

Not sure what you mean by “concrete evidence of God’s existence.”

God is not the universe, so there is nothing concrete about God.

Is it reasonable to believe in the existence of God based on reason and instinct?

Yes, and that is sufficient, though to believe in the Christian God one must add faith.

There are many “proofs” for the existence of God, some more credible than others.

There is no “proof” for the non-existence of God.

Whether or not God exists cannot depend on whether God reveals himself to us in person.

We can reason our way toward God if we are open-minded and with an open heart.

God is not an idea, but rather a Person.

To encounter God “concretely” one would have to have a relationship with the Person.

One begins with the idea of God and works one’s way toward the person.

This is also the way much scientific knowledge is achieved, working from the abstract toward concrete evidence that the abstract is right on. The Big Bang, for example, began as a mathematical formulation derived from Relativity Theory. But it was not concretely affirmed until evidence gradually began to appear that the idea was right on as opposed to the steady-state theory of the universe.

This is how we encounter God the Person concretely. We begin with the idea and gradually work our way toward the experience of God that confirms our idea. Some people encounter the idea of God but dismiss it as silly or irrational, much as some astronomers treated the Big Bang theory when it first appeared. Even today some people are antagonistic toward the Big Bang because it uncomfortably reminds them of a Creation event documented in Genesis. “Let there be light!”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[MarkInOregon]

The original question the topic creator wanted answered seems to boil down to this: If you came across something that would undoubtedly convince EVERYONE that God exists, would you make it public? What would the consequences be? Would the world of humanity be a better place?

I thinks she just meant to stress having something that would convince everyone. Something that would satisfy all skeptics and doubters beyond all doubt. The issue of our present state of evidence was not meant to be the point of the topic.

Thank you.

the peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[pianistclare]

Where is the “IF”?

.

It’s in the OP title.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Not sure what you mean by “concrete evidence of God’s existence.”

God is not the universe, so there is nothing concrete about God.

Is it reasonable to believe in the existence of God based on reason and instinct?

Yes, and that is sufficient, though to believe in the Christian God one must add faith.

There are many “proofs” for the existence of God, some more credible than others.

There is no “proof” for the non-existence of God.

Whether or not God exists cannot depend on whether God reveals himself to us in person.

We can reason our way toward God if we are open-minded and with an open heart.

God is not an idea, but rather a Person.

To encounter God “concretely” one would have to have a relationship with the Person.

One begins with the idea of God and works one’s way toward the person.

This is also the way much scientific knowledge is achieved, working from the abstract toward concrete evidence that the abstract is right on. The Big Bang, for example, began as a mathematical formulation derived from Relativity Theory. But it was not concretely affirmed until evidence gradually began to appear that the idea was right on as opposed to the steady-state theory of the universe.

This is how we encounter God the Person concretely. We begin with the idea and gradually work our way toward the experience of God that confirms our idea. Some people encounter the idea of God but dismiss it as silly or irrational, much as some astronomers treated the Big Bang theory when it first appeared. Even today some people are antagonistic toward the Big Bang because it uncomfortably reminds them of a Creation event documented in Genesis. “Let there be light!”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Does it matter what the OP means by concrete evidence in the context of the question presented? The OP is just saying, for purposes of the question, evidence exists that would convince everyone who saw it–why is it so hard for everyone to just play along with that premise and answer what effect they think that might have?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Let’s say that one day you obtained proof of God’s existence. For this thread the form doesn’t matter, but this evidence is:

1. Easily and quickly understood by all who see it.
2. Convinces 100% of those view it. Requires no “faith” to accept the conclusion.
3. Reveals previously unknown details about the nature of God and maybe some already taken on faith sufficiently enough to determine the “correct” religion/denomination.

Would you share evidence? What do you think the effects would be on humanity, good and bad? And would this harm the faithful by transforming faith* into knowledge?

*Faith, the belief in something with little or no evidence.

Of course I would share the evidence.

Probably some effect at first, but I think the effect would dwindle (think of 911). Many saw Christ perform numerous miracles, but yet all it took for him to lose many of his followers, if not most of them, was the bread of life discourse. You could end up with all people believing in God–even all in the same faith tradition that was proven–but I don’t know that it would lead to transformed lives that would transform the world. Humans seem pretty good at rationalizing any behavior. And then I think in time people would start to dismiss the evidence and produce elaborate proofs in order to do so. Belief in God requires something of us, it requires us to live a certain way–many don’t want to live that way and they will then believe anything else and dismiss even undisputable evidence. It’s just the way we are–we will finds ways to discredit anything we don’t want to believe.

No–I don’t think it hurts the faithful. I believe because I think the evidence we have best pionts to Jesus death and resurrection as an actual event. I’d be happy to recieve undisputable evidence of this, and I don’t see how additional evidence would harm me? The apostles saw the risen Christ–they had the undisputable evidence–it does’t seem to have harmed them–if anything it seems to have strengthened them (well that and the Holy Spirit).

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Does it matter what the OP means by concrete evidence in the context of the question presented? The OP is just saying, for purposes of the question, evidence exists that would convince everyone who saw it–why is it so hard for everyone to just play along with that premise and answer what effect they think that might have?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Play along with a “what if” question?

I don’t think so. Hypotheticals do not amuse me and it’s better to deal with human nature as it is or can be improved to be, but not under absurdly improbable circumstances.