Of course we can't prove God or have evidence

[SachieWhitby]

I didn’t voluntarily convert when I had no human influence to do so from no religion period to Catholicism for a God whose existence cannot be proven, especially since I believe that science often points towards God’s existence.

The rational skeptic that I am says that things like the Big Bang Theory points very much towards the existence of God [even if it cannot definitively prove God outright] because no matter how far back scientists, they keep hitting the same wall that both space and time had a beginning point. Since both space and time have an beginning, they had to have been created by something or more accurately someone * who could transcend both space and time to the extent of being able to exist outside of both.

I also think that the multi-dimensional theories [like String Theory] also point towards God’s existence. If God, Jesus, the saints, everyone else who died, Heaven and Hell are all in existence outside of our physical reality then it just seems like logical good sense to me that these things all exist elsewhere in some other dimension which we cannot access while in our physical state.*

 

[AuditVocemMeam]

Aquinas meant to make five arguments that stand on their own. He says that “the existence of God can be proved in five ways”, not that each argument depends on the other arguments for its force. It’s just the nature of metaphysical reasoning - you take obvious premises and show that they must necessarily lead to a conclusion.

This is an important distinction to understand (and I’m not targeting anyone and saying that he doesn’t understand it - it’s just good to know in general). We might be accustomed to the empirical framework where we test things and acquire data and then build a theory to explain the data. This is, of course, valid within its purposes. But there’s always the chance that new evidence could arise, that the theory could change, etc.

In contrast to this is the metaphysical method of reasoning, which is far more similar to reasoning in the geometrical sense than in the scientific sense (and by “scientific” I am referencing empirical natural science, since traditionally we call philosophy and theology sciences too), since in geometry we take premises and show that those premises lead unavoidably to some conclusion.

One example I have heard used to explain this is the Pythagorean theorem. We know that this is true because it has been proven; certain premises have been shown to lead unavoidably to its conclusion. If it turned out that this theorem is false, it would not be because new evidence would arise - whatever that means - but because there was some error in the argument. In the same way metaphysics takes a posteriori premises from the observation of the world - things change, contingent things exist, etc. - and aims to show that those premises lead unavoidably to a conclusion, like “there exists a being in whom essence and existence are identical (that’s God)” and if this conclusion turned out to be false, it wouldn’t be because of new evidence, because the argument wasn’t based on evidence (except in a very narrow sense, since the initial premises like “things change” are based on observation). It would be because of an error in the argument. But I think Aquinas is right, so I think the conclusion is necessarily true.

 

[ngill09]

I noticed something interesting after watching a Peter Kreeft video on you tube. I watched an atheists rebuttal video. What was extraordinary about the contrast in the 2 videos weren’t the arguments. It was the tone of each video. Dr. Kreeft was kind, and humble to everyone in the q&a session. His whole demeanor was very easy to watch. The atheist on the other hand was the polar opposite. He was condescending, arrogant, and mocked Dr. Kreeft through his whole argument on why Dr. Kreeft was wrong about everything. They both made a case for their sides not so much in their arguments, but in their being. I could see Christ in Dr. Kreeft, and the atheist exhibited pure hatred and contempt. He was awful to watch. I wasn’t surprised when clicking on another of his videos that he was making a case for how murder can be moral. I also notice the same thing watching Richard Dawkins telling his fans that they need to ridicule Catholics with contempt how hate filled he is. In his debates with John Lennox I notice the same contrast in demeanor as Dr. Kreeft, and the atheist who mocked him.

The intangible silent witness on both sides is not unnoticed. I was so turned off to the mocking arrogant ridicule that there was no need to listen to the arguments. I could see Christ in Dr Kreeft, and I could see the atheists father in him, and it wasn’t pleasant.

Links, please?

And while Kreeft is a respectable and humble philosopher, if you really want to see arrogance and mockery, look up the apologist William Lane Craig.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Add me to the camp that says we most certainly can know of God’s existence and many of his characteristics through natural reason alone. Don’t play into the atheist untruth that we have no evidence so we must rely on faith-meaning-I-believe-with-no-evidence.

Wholeheartedly agreed. A few years ago my theism was challenged, and I studied the arguments of atheism (more thoroughly and in a much more informed manner than most atheists themselves will ever do). Would I not find crucial evidence from natural reason for God’s existence, I would be an atheist by now.

So I don’t need any of this ‘hearty’ stuff if reason does not suffice. I disagree with the original poster in the vehemently strongest terms possible.

And as other posters have shown, the Catholic Church itself strongly disagrees with the original poster as well.

 

[Al_Moritz]

But hard-heartedness can certainly make one feel justified in rejecting the evidence.

And that’s a crucial point as well. What I notice with many atheists is a distinct lack of intellectual humility, which may have hard-heartedness as a source.

 

[snarflemike]

Links, please?

And while Kreeft is a respectable and humble philosopher, if you really want to see arrogance and mockery, look up the apologist William Lane Craig.

Really? I’ve listened to a fair amount of WLC and I honestly can’t say I’ve seen that.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So I don’t need any of this ‘hearty’ stuff if reason does not suffice. I disagree with the original poster in the vehemently strongest terms possible.

And as other posters have shown, the Catholic Church itself strongly disagrees with the original poster as well.

My apologies for the edgy tone of my response, but I feel strongly about this issue.

 

[polytropos]

Aquinas meant to make five arguments that stand on their own. He says that “the existence of God can be proved in five ways”, not that each argument depends on the other arguments for its force. It’s just the nature of metaphysical reasoning - you take obvious premises and show that they must necessarily lead to a conclusion.

This is an important distinction to understand (and I’m not targeting anyone and saying that he doesn’t understand it - it’s just good to know in general). We might be accustomed to the empirical framework where we test things and acquire data and then build a theory to explain the data. This is, of course, valid within its purposes. But there’s always the chance that new evidence could arise, that the theory could change, etc.

This has not been my understanding. I admit I have not actually read St. Thomas nor have I read any more recent Thomist syntheses (this is something I need to do but don’t think I will get to in a while). I did recently read a book (essentially an explanation of modern science in terms of realist philosophy) that provided Aquinas’s proofs with the caveat that they gain strength through their concatenation. This was, of course, the writer’s perspective, but I think it has some validity.

As I’ve said before, I think someone who is generally logical can still find some reason to reject any one of Aquinas’s proofs (or all of them) if they are simply not open to them. I know this is how I reacted when I first read them. The deceptive thing about philosophical proofs (in contrast to mathematical proofs) is the ambiguity of language. Even if something seems very logical, one has to be careful with tricks of language (especially when reading things in translation). This does not mean that all philosophical conclusions are inherently and inextricably dubious, but it does mean that the logic will be more effective when it is reformulated.

And that is what Aquinas’s proofs basically do. The difference between a Prime Mover and an Uncaused Cause is subtle and almost semantic. To gain confidence in the proofs, it is really crucial to see them reformulated in this way.

In a more “technical” sense, evolutionary psychologists could easily object to Aquinas’s fourth proof, ie. the gradation of, say, goodness is a product of the mind’s subjective judgments rather than of reality. That does not make it wrong - but in the modern intellectual climate, I don’t think that proof stands alone very easily.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Links, please?

And while Kreeft is a respectable and humble philosopher, if you really want to see arrogance and mockery, look up the apologist William Lane Craig.

Completely derailing someone’s arguments and pointing out fallacious reasoning is neither arrogance nor mockery. I have not heard Craig ever once disparage or make a personal attack on one of his opponents or their worldview. I cannot say the same for many of his opponents, who use blatantly inflammatory language in regards to people of faith.

 

[ngill09]

Really? I’ve listened to a fair amount of WLC and I honestly can’t say I’ve seen that.

Completely derailing someone’s arguments and pointing out fallacious reasoning is neither arrogance nor mockery. I have not heard Craig ever once disparage or make a personal attack on one of his opponents or their worldview. I cannot say the same for many of his opponents, who use blatantly inflammatory language in regards to people of faith.

In response to this: youtube.com/watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60

… Craig posted this: reasonablefaith.org/must-everything-that-begins-to-exist-have-a-material-cause

… Which completely and utterly strawmans the original argument to an astounding degree, attributing the person he’s responding to a position he explicitly explains that he’s not holding. Watch: youtube.com/watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo to see the full extent of how badly he mischaracterizes his opponents’ arguments.

William Lane Craig is a terrible apologist. His arguments seem good, until you see the objections. And because he is hell-bent on ignoring the real objections to his arguments, he is unconvincing to anyone except those who’ve never heard the real objections to his arguments.

 

[prodigalson2011]

In response to this: youtube.com/watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60

… Craig posted this: reasonablefaith.org/must-everything-that-begins-to-exist-have-a-material-cause

… Which completely and utterly strawmans the original argument to an astounding degree, attributing the person he’s responding to a position he explicitly explains that he’s not holding. Watch: youtube.com/watch?v=4IGlgYExLOo to see the full extent of how badly he mischaracterizes his opponents’ arguments.

William Lane Craig is a terrible apologist. His arguments seem good, until you see the objections. And because he is hell-bent on ignoring the real objections to his arguments, he is unconvincing to anyone except those who’ve never heard the real objections to his arguments.

So I just watched the original video (not the one you linked) in which he lays out his criticism, and he says exactly what Craig’s article claims he says. The guy is, among other things, redundant and scientifically misinformed. He’s not even a philosopher, he’s an actor.

To draw a point on the amateurish level of his critique, he harped over and over on the fact that everything that exists in the universe right now is composed of matter that has existed since the beginning of the universe for several minutes as though it was some kind of esoteric knowledge and then tried to use it to bolster his objection. Unfortunately for him, it has no bearing on Craig’s argument. He demonstrates absolutely zero understanding of metaphysical principles.

More to the point, I saw nowhere in Craig’s article where he made a personal attack on the guy or his atheism. The worst I saw was this:

*I once expressed bewilderment that people like TBS could be taken in by such sloppy thinking. I think I know part of the reason now: such folks are wrestling with significant and difficult philosophical questions but lack the skills to do so rigorously. They do not have the metaphysical and logical training to formulate their ideas and arguments properly. Unfortunately, rather than ask probing questions, they presume to pronounce confidently, even smugly, on these matters.

Am I being uncharitable in so saying? Not at all! There is no peer review on the internet, and incompetents are everywhere, ready to take in the unsuspecting. Sam Harris has warned, “the less competent a person is in a given domain, the more he will tend to overestimate his abilities. This often produces an ugly marriage of confidence and ignorance that is very difficult to correct for.” Unfortunately, he complains, “anyone with a computer and too much time on his hands can broadcast his point of view and, often enough, find an audience.”*

The most biting remarks he took from the mouth of Sam Harris, and even those were simple truths that could apply to anyone with any worldview. Again, no attack on his person or his beliefs. All he targets is the guy’s faulty logic.

 

[Frankenfurter]

The Church teaches otherwise.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c1.htm

“Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.”

We can know God’s existence with certainty using the light of natural reason. It just so happens that modern philosophy is hell-bent on losing its grip on reality.

Thanks you for that. I resonate with this and think it is saying the same thing that I was trying to express in my own way. The church is saying that you have to choose to seek him first and love him, then you can come to know him in both a rational way, and also at a personal level. But it is not the same as a scientific proof.

A guess I see a lot of folks stop at the first step. They want to know first before seeking and loving.

I see the same thing play out all the time regarding other things. For example, say someone does not understand how a 747 could fly. So they are rationally afraid to fly and thus never experience flight to know that it is possible. Meanwhile, the guy who has faith in the pilot and the airplane climbs on board and experiences flight and loves it. He now knows that flight is possible. Over time he learns the physics and the way that flight works and becomes even an airplane designer himself. Meanwhile, the faithless man is still back on the ground demanding theoretical proofs that a 100,000 pound thing could fly, but since the math is beyond him, he never gets off the ground.

I deal with advanced technology that most people can’t comprehend. I see this process play out regarding things that are much harder to grasp than airplanes, but I wanted to make my point with a tangible example.

Didn’t Jesus say something to the effect of ‘blessed is he who believes in me without seeing me’. I really feel for that.

Proof of God is an end, not a beginning I think. I believe the church’s statement says the same thing.

Just feeling frustrated that so many atheists are left behind on the ground so to speak.

This all seems painfully obvious to me.

 

[ngill09]

Thanks you for that. I resonate with this and think it is saying the same thing that I was trying to express in my own way. The church is saying that you have to choose to seek him first and love him, then you can come to know him in both a rational way, and also at a personal level. But it is not the same as a scientific proof.

A guess I see a lot of folks stop at the first step. They want to know first before seeking and loving.

I see the same thing play out all the time regarding other things. For example, say someone does not understand how a 747 could fly. So they are rationally afraid to fly and thus never experience flight to know that it is possible. Meanwhile, the guy who has faith in the pilot and the airplane climbs on board and experiences flight and loves it. He now knows that flight is possible. Over time he learns the physics and the way that flight works and becomes even an airplane designer himself. Meanwhile, the faithless man is still back on the ground demanding theoretical proofs that a 100,000 pound thing could fly, but since the math is beyond him, he never gets off the ground.

I deal with advanced technology that most people can’t comprehend. I see this process play out regarding things that are much harder to grasp than airplanes, but I wanted to make my point with a tangible example.

Didn’t Jesus say something to the effect of ‘blessed is he who believes in me without seeing me’. I really feel for that.

Proof of God is an end, not a beginning I think. I believe the church’s statement says the same thing.

Just feeling frustrated that so many atheists are left behind on the ground so to speak.

This all seems painfully obvious to me.

Not a very good analogy: you can watch the plane take off and fly before you get on yourself.

Now, what if someone claimed that if you jumped off a bridge, you wouldn’t die, but would be transported to the distant future? Of course, there’s no way to tell without jumping - those who do jump just look like they die. Their bodies just stay in the present and seem lifeless because their mind has gone to the future. Don’t worry, I know it doesn’t make sense now, but if you jump it will all make sense.

Suddenly faith doesn’t seem like such a virtue, does it?

 

[cranster]

Links, please?

And while Kreeft is a respectable and humble philosopher, if you really want to see arrogance and mockery, look up the apologist William Lane Craig.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbPWDnoKt4
m.youtube.com/watch?v=JpnccmvdZbw

and Sam Harris proposes killing people for ideas. The justification for murder seems to be the natural end for these people.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BNPKuV-2Hw

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve surfed many threads here. I see atheists claim that we can’t prove God exists or show any evidence for him.

I have never worried about such things.

If God is beyond us, any test we have for him fails. Any attempt to prove him fails. And he knows this. Jesus was frustrated by those who demanded proof. What a skeptic might accept as proof is irrelevant.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I have always found this seclf evident.

I prefer to look for God in the human heart, in the eyes of a baby, or in the embrace of a loved one. I take great pleasure in the Gospel passages where God says that if we do his will and love him he will dwell within us,

Anybody else?

I agree with your preferences but Jesus was certainly not frustrated by those who demanded proof. He was constantly reasoning with his opponents, whether they were Pharisees, Sadducees, Gentiles or sceptics (like Pilate):

5 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

“And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? - Matthew 6:28

 

[Frankenfurter]

Not a very good analogy: you can watch the plane take off and fly before you get on yourself.

I did not know the test pilot of the first 747 but there was one. He had faith in the designers and engineers.

Of course the Wright Brothers had faith that it was possible too. Like all visionaries who have created the modern world, whose fruits of faith we now depend on for our existence.

 

[ngill09]

m.youtube.com/watch?v=rDbPWDnoKt4
m.youtube.com/watch?v=JpnccmvdZbw

and Sam Harris proposes killing people for ideas. The justification for murder seems to be the natural end for these people.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BNPKuV-2Hw

So we have an anonymous college student who seems rather smug. Do I even need to point out the anonymous posters on this forum who seem even more smug?

And we have a quote from Sam Harris taken out of context, wherein if you look at the context more, you’ll find that he’s not justifying murder, but self-defense.

For example (and he uses this example to illustrate his point): Suppose you had a loved one held hostage by a terrorist. You try to reason with the terrorist, but the terrorists ideology makes it impossible to reason with him. At that point, it may be justified to kill him to save your loved one.

So if you’re going to ignore what people say and imagine them saying things they don’t, then of course they’re going to seem evil. Congratulations, you’ve convinced me that the only reason Catholics fear atheists is because Catholics are incapable of understanding what an atheist actually says and insist on arguing with the “evil atheist” of their imagination.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Now, what if someone claimed that if you jumped off a bridge, you wouldn’t die, but would be transported to the distant future? Of course, there’s no way to tell without jumping - those who do jump just look like they die. Their bodies just stay in the present and seem lifeless because their mind has gone to the future. Don’t worry, I know it doesn’t make sense now, but if you jump it will all make sense.

Suddenly faith doesn’t seem like such a virtue, does it?

Right.

I am saying that faith precedes knowledge. In your example, the knowledge gleaned is that that jumping off bridges kills you. But faith still precedes knowledge. You can’t prove it first. You have to be willing to experience something to really know.

I am glad we have Christ, so that our faith is not blind, like jumping off bridges but guided to the Father. Once experienced, no proof of the existence of God is needed, just a life time of learning more.

 

[ngill09]

Right.

I am saying that faith precedes knowledge. In your example, the knowledge gleaned is that that jumping off bridges kills you. But faith still precedes knowledge. You can’t prove it first. You have to be willing to experience something to really know.

I am glad we have Christ, so that our faith is not blind, like jumping off bridges but guided to the Father. Once experienced, no proof of the existence of God is needed, just a life time of learning more.

This is the best example of confirmation bias I’ve ever seen.

 

[Frankenfurter]

This is the best example of confirmation bias I’ve ever seen.

And I suppose that if I have faith in my parents, that they will love me and I should do what they say, that you would say that is confirmation bias.

Or if I trust my math teacher when he says that I should learn calculus, even though I don’t understand its purpose yet, that it will unlock truths in the future, that this is confirmation bias.

Or that if I trust a doctor that I have faith in to operate on me to save my life, that this is confirmation bias.

I’m OK with that.

You make my point for me.

You are making a moral claim that confirmation bias might be a bad thing, when in fact it is a neutral concept. Just part of life. Just a big fancy word for something obvious. IMHO.