Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PMVCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Argument from miracles? Every religion claims to have miracles.

Argument from religious experience? That applies to every religion.
Excellent.

We are making progress.

So it’s not that you reject the existence of God. You can see how it’s clearly a rational position that a God exists.

It’s just that you’re rejecting the God of the Bible? Is that a correct explication of your position?
 
Humans obviously are not eternal, i.e. we entirely exist within the flow of time and thus can only make choices.

I think the son has some aspect of His existence which is part of the flow of time, though the Thomists may crucify me for saying that.

😃
Actually, being eternal is not inconsistent with being in the flow of time. The “present” may be a point of contact between the two.

There is no logical reason for claiming being in the present precludes existing in the past or eternally.

How would you know that humans exist “entirely” within “the flow of time” without complete knowledge of what it means to be human or what constitutes the boundaries of the flow of time? Are you claiming you know fully what constitutes being “human” or “in time?”

If so, how do you know that you have full grasp of that knowledge?

See:

jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2026047?uid=3739392&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21104236788931
 
Excellent.

We are making progress.

So it’s not that you reject the existence of God. You can see how it’s clearly a rational position that a God exists.

It’s just that you’re rejecting the God of the Bible? Is that a correct explication of your position?
Apology accepted, thank you.

I do not believe in any God.

If someone could prove that their God is real, then I’d of course have to accept that that particular God exists.

The problem believers have is that they cannot produce a single shred of objective evidence that their God is real.
 
I never said ’ faith alone’.
So then what was your point?

Are you saying that faith in anything is irrational?
You cannot point to any tangible or objective evidence that proves your God is real.
I have given you 20 arguments for God’s existence.
You have faith that your God is real.
I use faith and reason to come to the conclusion that God is real.
Until someone can prove that your God is real, I will continue to believe he isn’t real.
Tell me which argument for God’s existence you find the most reasonable, and where it is flawed, and then we can go from there.
 
Every argument on that page has been refuted and destroyed many times over. A simple google search will present all the rebuttals.
I am going to take an atheistic position here and propose this: until you provide some objective evidence that you have actually studied these arguments for God’s existence, I won’t believe that you have done so.

I believe that you haven’t even heard of most of these arguments for God’s existence.

So until you provide evidence, objectively, in the form of a reasoned refutation (in your own words, of course) to the most compelling argument for God’s existence I say: you’ve never studied them.
 
Apology accepted, thank you.

I do not believe in any God.

If someone could prove that their God is real, then I’d of course have to accept that that particular God exists.
What minimum kind of proof are you looking for? A personal handshake with God?

Do you agree that the demand for that kind of proof would be laughable?

How about this?

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“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.”

Book of Genesis: Centuries before Christ: “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
 
What minimum kind of proof are you looking for? A personal handshake with God?

Do you agree that the demand for that kind of proof would be laughable?

How about this?

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe….
Incidentally,** (987: this is for your benefit),** a CATHOLIC priest was the first scientist to propose the Big Bang theory.
 
Here we still are, you can no more prove that your God is real, just as a Hindu cannot prove that his Gods are real.
Just as YOU, as YOU, cannot “prove” that YOU are real to someone who refuses to believe that YOU are.

To a large extent, proof and evidence, are only as good as the recipient of that proof and evidence.

I could not, for example, supply any “proof” for my existence that a rock would accept. That “fact” in itself does not suffice to prove that I do not exist.

So merely because you have not accepted any proof does not mean either:
  1. No such proof exists, nor that,
  2. No such proof can ever be formulated.
So your claim that “you CAN no more prove that your God is real, than…” is simply an assertion for which you have provided, not a smidge of the kind of “evidence” you demand of theists. It is the “faith” claim of a fundamentalist atheist and nothing more.

At least, follow your own rules. If you demand “evidence” or “proof” from others, then be so kind as to take on the same burden yourself for the claims you make. Otherwise, be prepared not to be taken seriously.

You have no control over what others can or cannot do, nor over what God can or cannot do and to claim, as an absolute impossibility, (i.e., you CAN no more prove…) what others “can” or “cannot” do is overstepping what you are believably competent to claim.

In other words, making such a claim is, plainly speaking, evidence that you lack an understanding of the limits of your own logic.

You have overstepped your own boundaries, young man. There is a stool in the corner. 😃
 
The problem believers have is that they cannot produce a single shred of objective evidence that their God is real.
Properly formulated what you mean, I suspect, is that, “The problem believers have is that they have not yet produced a single shred of objective evidence…”

This may be another grammatical foible on your part, but “cannot” implies impossibility of ever being able to, not mere failure to have done so, thus far.

It may be an arguable claim that theists have thus far failed to provide acceptable evidence, but a claim that it is impossible to ever do so is, clearly, untenable.

This, I suspect, was behind PRMerger’s attempt at pointing out why grammar is important. Couching logical claims in grammatically or symantically incorrect language leads to problems for everyone, especially naive claimants making wild-eyed remarks on a Catholic forum.

We have standards. 😃
 
What minimum kind of proof are you looking for? A personal handshake with God?

Do you agree that the demand for that kind of proof would be laughable?
Only on a Catholic forum would tangible evidence for the existence of God be considered laughable.

:rolleyes:
 
First there is no evidence that God Doesn’t exist. You can’t prove a negative hypothesis.
You must assume he does exist.

The Laws of Physics demands that matter and energy cannot be created which points to a creator outside our Universe.

The Law of Entropy also points to God as a creator because matter on its own only becomes disordered when our observations of the Universe clearly show order.

No God, No Creation, No Matter, No Order.

God Exists! Halleluiah!
 
First there is no evidence that God Doesn’t exist. You can’t prove a negative hypothesis.
You must assume he does exist.

The Laws of Physics demands that matter and energy cannot be created which points to a creator outside our Universe.

The Law of Entropy also points to God as a creator because matter on its own only becomes disordered when our observations of the Universe clearly show order.

No God, No Creation, No Matter, No Order.

God Exists! Halleluiah!
First there is no evidence that God exists.

I do not assume God exists.

The Laws of Physics do not demand a God exists.

The Law of Entropy has nothing to say about a supernatural God.

No God, No Creation, NO Matter, No Order…according to who? You and other believers.

Remove God from the equation and you still have creation. How did this all come about? The people studying these things still don’t have the answer, but wouldn’t it be exciting if they were able to discover the answer?
 
Only on a Catholic forum would tangible evidence for the existence of God be considered laughable.

:rolleyes:
My experience with atheists, including you, is that they all regard such evidence as ridiculous.

But when they are ridiculed, religious people should remember that they have the best chance of having the last laugh. 😉

No?
 
First there is no evidence that God exists.

I do not assume God exists.

The Laws of Physics do not demand a God exists.

The Law of Entropy has nothing to say about a supernatural God.

No God, No Creation, NO Matter, No Order…according to who? You and other believers.

Remove God from the equation and you still have creation. How did this all come about? The people studying these things still don’t have the answer, but wouldn’t it be exciting if they were able to discover the answer?
In your mind God is not necessary to explain anything. But why is it not necessary for you to explain why God does not exist? And if you are so convinced God does not exist, what are you doing at Catholic Answers. Is this just mental gymnastics for you, or are you sincerely doubting your own conviction and looking to see if someone can persuade you otherwise? If the former, I wouldn’t bother with you any longer, and I would wonder why you are bothering with us. There are other places to do intellectual push-ups. 🤷

I have the feeling, from what your arguments amount to, that you are intractable. 🤷
 
My experience with atheists, including you, is that they all regard such evidence as ridiculous.

But when they are ridiculed, religious people should remember that they have the best chance of having the last laugh. 😉

No?
Tangible evidence isn’t ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top