Proving God Exists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ziggamafu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“I mean, it seems God would be able to tell you some sort of information that would make the rest of us run to our local church. Blah - I keep getting stuck on ideas…”-Please understand, Rainier, that what you are doing in this quotation is using finite human understanding and applying it to whatever inaccurate perception you have of the God of the Bible, not taking into account the way in which God actually chooses to accomplish His objectives throughout the Bible: If a human being is capable of the forethought necessary to forego the most obvious means of achieving a goal, due to the fact that this might result in hindering the accomplishment of another goal of his/hers, then, conceding that the God of the Bible is omniscient, and omnipotent, would He not at least be equally capable?
 
AquinAugustine said:
“I mean, it seems God would be able to tell you some sort of information that would make the rest of us run to our local church. Blah - I keep getting stuck on ideas…”-Please understand, Rainier, that what you are doing in this quotation is using finite human logic and applying it to whatever inaccurate perception you have of the God of the Bible, not taking inot account the way in which God actually chooses to accomplish His objectives: If a human being is capable of the forethought necessary to forego the most obvious means of achieving a goal, due to the fact that this might result in hindering the accomplishment of another goal of his/hers, then, conceding that the God of the Bible is omniscient, and omnipotent, would He not at least be equally capable?
Click to expand...
Well, I think the definition of God is set up so that anything is possible. It seems to me that the omnipotence of this deity would mean that doing something differently is not necessary. As for me having an inaccurate portrayal of what God is, I generally go on the whole omni-definition. As for using human logic, I think using human logic is really the best thing to use. What other logic is there to go on? Even your belief in God is derived from your human logic.
 
I was really intending not to participate in Rainier’s plays, but one thing made me again in.
Dear Sir,
Atheism is a religion ! Atheists are believers in materialistic god. they believe that everything is made by material and when someone dies in late seventhees, it is just a emotions that somebody still remembers him / her. they believe also, that we differentiate form animals, only with clothes, refrigerators and birthday celebrations. they believe, that water in Mars H2O and water on Earth H2O is just coincidentially with the same formula. they belive, that they are enough clever to make the formula of my brain. i do not know how old are you, but I tell you - they believed they can make the rivers go in the opposite direction. in early 60 ths. they believed in late 80ths. people will eat only pills, which will replace the food. and so and so forth.
We believe that our nature is made and works in absolute order, that nobody must touch this order ! We believe that can be done by only One Supernatural Omnipotential Creature, we call that God ! We believe that God loves all he creates and most of all the human beings ! That is why he gave them the free will ! In the same time he loves them so much, that wants everybody to make a good choice, but because of the law of free will he can’t interfere directly in the live of people. That is why he has sent his Son - Jesus Christ, to be tortured and crucified and show to the human beings, what kind of life God is willing those human beings to lead !

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
 
“Well, I think the definition of God is set up so that anything is possible. It seems to me that the omnipotence of this deity would mean that doing something differently is not necessary”-Again, this reflects an ignorance of what God actually does, as opposed to what God is capable of doing, within the Bible, for example, choosing to have the events of the Exodus, such as the parting of the sea, occur by way of natural means, in this case, an east wind, as opposed to miraculously placing a bath tub drain at the bottom of said sea which He subsequently pulled the stopper out of, allowing the waters to drain thereby.
 
What I intended to express by pointing out the role of finite understanding in your argument is that you, essentially, in order to make your argument, placed yourself into the position of One who is, according to the Bible and Church, omniscient. On what grounds would one presume the ability to infer what such an omniscient being would or would not do in any given situation?
 
“but it also says to argue with us because your words will be inspired by God. I’ll be unable to refuse the truth… I don’t know - just a thought.”-It most assuredly does not say that you will be unable to refuse. In reality, the fact that the gospel is not the word of man, but the Word of God is the reason that is given for nonacceptance thereof by most.
 
Rainier22 said:
What you’re using is called the God of the Gaps argument. Wherever there is a gap in understanding, someone inserts God. God used to be the maker of the weather, the earthquakes, the animals… Now God is left to the questions we still have.
Click to expand...
Actually, Rainier, and I most definately DO love the name “Rainier” as it flows off the tongue so nicely, that wise people NEVER “insert God into the Gaps”.

What they DO is know, for a fact, that there IS an answer to their question, and that the reason is because God would not make a universe which doesn’t make sense.

God doesn’t MAKE the weather, but He definitely set the environment up such that whatever weather was due to come would be what made sense in coming.

Those who curse God because of the hurricane are more interested in God doing things for them, or at least not TO them, than God having created a planet which occassionally does these kinds of things due to it’s “being as it is”.

The person who rails against God thinks God owes them something after the hurricane has come through.

The person who thanks God for whatever His will was, thanks God for being alive, or says hello to God in person.
 
Super_Grover said:
CatsAndDogs, you asked me to comment on this post. I’ll try, but a lot of this discussion is beyond me. So, this can certainly be nitpicked, but here goes. I think that what you are saying, without doing it justice, is that those who embrace scientific method almost as a religion unto itself, and who would usually approach a question with some working hypothesis that they then prove, disprove, or reach inconclusive results, don’t employ that approach with respect to the notion of an Intelligent Creator. That is to say, they don’t hypothesize “there is an Intelligent Creator” or “there is no Intelligent Creator”, and now I will test that hypothesis. Then, reaching results which should at least leave God open as a valid theory, impose higher standards, and say that since God cannot be proven, there is no God. Is that about right?
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for responding. I **VERY **much appreciate it, BELIEVE me!

You understand me pretty well.

They don’t form the prerequisites to test what they believe, then claim they can’t test what they believe because they don’t have the prerequisites to do so.

They don’t even attempt the test, because the test is supposedly inherently invalid.

Then they, mysteriously, claim that the results of their non-test is the non-existence of the thing not-tested-for.

VERY mysterious, indeed!
Yeah, I don’t quite understand that. I can understand agnosticism, even a those who tend toward atheism. I don’t understand pure atheism, a faith in no god, because God simply cannot be disproved.
Click to expand...
My lumping agnostics and atheists into the same “barrel” is due to the fact that neither of them will do what they could do to get what they say they want.

Neither of them will do the necessary work, the necessary experiments. I agree with you in that at least the agnostic doesn’t believe that a non-test can give a valid result! 🙂
The infinite and hidden God reveals himself as He wishes. Science will never prove or disprove His existence. If He was smart enough to make this vast universe, He is smart enough to hide from our microscopes, telescopes, genome maps, and mathematical equations. And he would no more offer “super proofs” for scientists, than He would call a press conference in front of the United Nations for the rest of us. I believe that scientific advancements will continue to cause some to see evidence of God, and others to see evidence of no god.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe there is evidence for “no God”. There is only that which won’t be seen as evidence for God.

None are so blind as those who WILL not see.

Those who see “evidence” of “no God” in man’s expanding understanding of the universe have purposefully overwhelmed themselves with “details” so as to put off (delay) their having to face the fact that right-use, and not utility, is the goal of the search for knowledge.

Right-use is only found by religious experimentation, while utility is what we get when we do materialistic experimentation.

Science is truly composed of two parts, consisting of religious science and materialistic science. Without both parts, we go round and round on the never ending wheel of efficient-killing to inefficient-killing to efficient-killing etcetera etcetera, so it is written, so it shall be done (to paraphrase the King of Siam).
Again, for the finite to truly appreciate the existence of the Infinite requires something other than finite, human tools such as scientific method. The Church teaches that the existence of God may be known through human reason, and that is, of course, true. But for every argument from logic in favor of His existence, there are arguments that will tossed back at you against His existence. I think that to actually BELIEVE and have Faith, and therefore truly understand Church teachings, requires supernatural intervention. If there is something dogmatically incorrect in what I’ve said, someone please correct me.
Click to expand...
Amen. That’s why it’s called grace.

Those graced to WANT to do what needs doing do it, and those not graced to want to do what needs doing find something else to do instead.

The grace is in the WANT. How do you make somebody WANT what they don’t WANT? 🙂

Have you ever noticed that ALL disputes on these boards (forums) revolve around only TWO questions:
  1. Authority, acceptance to being instructed
  2. Free Will, acceptance to doing instructions
…interesting.
 
This is response for 3 people, so sorry if it’s confusing.

Valentin
This is one of the main causes of militant atheism in my opinion. If atheism is a religion, then so is Biology.

I really liked this little tid bit on religion at Wikipedia.
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

You have faith in God in spite of having absolutely no evidence for such a thing. To me, it’s similar to believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the tooth fairy in that regard. That’s faith.

When I look around and see a rock, I say “Hey, I found a rock.” That’s rational observation. If I look around and say “Hey, I don’t see a rock,” then that’s still a rational observation. If I look around and explain to you that I don’t see a Majestic Bean Master, or even the slightest trace of one, then that’s an observation. That’s what I see. I can tell you that rationally. I can even say that this doesn’t appear to be what the popular definition of the Majestic Bean Master would create. However, I can’t say that The Majestic Bean Master doesn’t exist. I can only say that I don’t believe the MBM exists because I don’t see any reason to believe that. You can insert tooth fairy, peter pan, or any other character you want. That’s not religion. That’s observing the world around you.

I don’t even have faith that everything is material or whatever you said. I only know what I have available to know. I don’t know the rest. I don’t know if there is a God, but I most certainly don’t see one. Also, I don’t have any rituals or holidays. There is on long standing tradition to go celebrate the lack of a deity on any day.

I don’t even believe the world is exactly as I see it. I see things in relation to light waves instead of heat or sound. That’s only one viewpoint for my sight. The world is most certainly different than I perceive it. I’m here to spread DNA, not observe cosmic disasters. Hence how hard it is to see cosmic disasters. BUT, this is the best I have. These are the senses I have, and this is what I see. I don’t see a God, thus I don’t believe one exists. I don’t know for sure, but I’m not seeing one. This is the exact same as you would be towards Santa Clause or the Majestic Bean Master.

I actually think I’m a biological algorithm with the illusion of free will that makes decisions based on how DNA and stimuli interacted during my development and how that development reacts to stimuli today. My senses are only here to keep me alive, and that they do. Everything is a working hypothesis being tested or refuted. Every single one of my senses is capable of being wrong, and I usually can correct them if they are in a sense. I hope you’re getting the idea. I don’t think there is any magical spirit in me. I don’t think I have a soul or “life force.” I think what I can observe: that I’m a whole bunch of chemicals reacting to stimuli. Lack of belief in a God is no more religious than my lack of belief in the Majestic Bean Master.

AquinAugustine
You said that God has chosen to do things by nature such as the events in Exodus you described. I don’t remember the exact details, but why did the people believe it was God? Why do you believe it is God today? If it is only natural events, why would one think it is a god?

As for the omniscient person - well - I think you should read what I wrote to Valentin. I’m about as omniscient as a fly.

As for the Bible not saying anything about me refusing the truth, I may be misunderstanding it.
Luke 21
12"But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name’s sake. 13"It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony. 14"So make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves; 15for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute.
**
CatsAndDogs
**
About all I can say is never say never. It has happened, and it will continue to happen. Who is and isn’t wise is completely subjective if you ask me.

I love the word Rainier too. Apparently it’s known from Peter Rainier, the navigator for George Vancouver. And of course Mt. Rainier isn’t too far from Vancouver.

I like the mountain more than the name though.
http://thesisdesignlab.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/mt_rainier_sm.jpg
 
Well, CatsAndDogs, I empathize with non-believers very much, having descended from a vague “Catholicism” (about which I knew almost nothing), into agnosticism bordering on atheism (and entertaining various heretical thoughts along the way), before my own conversion.

The scientific method is a wonderful tool that has made life so much better in so many ways. Our intellect is pretty amazing, and we have acquired so much knowledge in so many areas, in such a short period of time, (just look at cosmology in the last 20-30 years) that the thought that there are mysteries that our scientific exploration can never satisfactorily evaluate is utterly unacceptable to some. It’s hard to be humble when you’re so darn awesome, and these scientists who are unlocking all of these secrets are awesome. And we feel a certain pride just know that other people, sort of like us, can unlock these secrets. Yes, I do think that there are those who cling to scientific method and rationalism IN ALL AREAS with almost a religiousness, while there are scientific, rational people who are more comfortable with the limitations of SM, reasoning, and our intellect.

I’m a “science buff” I guess, and I frequently subscribe to Scientific American (even though it’s become fairly atheistic IMO) and will read Skeptic magazine if its available. I really am not anti-science or anti-rationalism, because I agree that much of what we do is best approached rationally and scientifically. But if the SM oriented person were to really ponder the use of SM to evaluate the hypothesis of an Infinite and Intelligent Creator, they would realize the potential absurdity of the endeavor.

I hesitated to get into this thread because I really don’t think that we can argue hardened science and rationalism types into a belief in God. That’s why I shared how I came to belief, and it wasn’t someone’s brilliant argument. If I had read CS Lewis earlier, I don’t know what would have happened, but I suspect it would not have won the day.

If anyone here has been won over from agnosticism to Faith by virtue of someone else’s argument, either in conversation or a good book, or whatever, I sure would like to know.
 
Super_Grover said:
I hesitated to get into this thread because I really don’t think that we can argue hardened science and rationalism types into a belief in God. That’s why I shared how I came to belief, and it wasn’t someone’s brilliant argument.
Click to expand...
I can’t argue you into a belief that my guitar is magical either I suppose. 🤷

I agree that hard science and rationality are not going to win this kind of thing, but that’s what’s so hard for me to understand. It seems like you believe this is the most rational way to go, but you actually go against it. It’s really interesting.

Seriously, I found your story really fascinating. If I had an experience like that, it would be tough to stay rational. But rationality is all we have in trying to be accurate. I figure it’s better than just believing things.

How exactly did your experience begin? Did you do anything that you hadn’t done before?
 
“You said that God has chosen to do things by nature such as the events in Exodus you described. I don’t remember the exact details, but why did the people believe it was God? Why do you believe it is God today? If it is only natural events, why would one think it is a god?”-First, there is the Torah, which claims that God made Moses aware of what he was going to do, through His creation, not in aberration of it. Second, there is the cumulative drastic unlikelihood that all of the natural phenomena which accompanied the Santorini eruption(the likely culprit), and which made the Exodus possible, would have occurred in such a way that each stage would produce a result that the Israelites needed when the Israelites needed. This is a theme that, according to my reading, can also be applied to the development of life, which could not have occurred by chance within the amount of time CBR suggests has passed since the big bang. This is an indisputable fact of current science.
 
Super_Grover said:
I hesitated to get into this thread because I really don’t think that we can argue hardened science and rationalism types into a belief in God.

If anyone here has been won over from agnosticism to Faith by virtue of someone else’s argument, either in conversation or a good book, or whatever, I sure would like to know.
Click to expand...
No one is EVER converted by another.

As I said up there, somewhere, grace is in the WANT. Ya’ gotta WANNIT!

This is especially true of “intellectuals”, such as yourself and me, because nothing gets through the massive egomaniacal armor of the intellectual mind other than the equally massive egomaniacal PANIC of our armor’s dragging us to the bottom of the river in battle!

We only take it off when it’s about to kill us.

I don’t bash people’s armor anymore in hopes of their conversion. I try to get their horse to buck them off into the depths of the stream,… if only momentarily.

The rest is God’s job.
 
Rainier22 said:
If I had an experience like that, it would be tough to stay rational. But rationality is all we have in trying to be accurate. I figure it’s better than just believing things.
Click to expand...
I realize this comment was addressed to Super Grover, but I have to make a comment on this distinction between knowledge and belief that you cling to so tightly.

Part of the problem with supposed rationalists or brights as they often call themselves – the self-proclaimed enlightened ones – is their consistent, or inconsistent (depending upon your point of view), application of the word “belief.” According to this group, theists have beliefs, but atheists, basing their conclusions solely upon verifiable evidence only work with “knowledge.” They “know” things but never, ever commit the sin of “believing” something. They cannot be “sucked in” to such a naive position as those theists, purely because of their intellectual superiority.

Perhaps it is precisely here that intellectual pride shows itself in its most malignant form. They cannot be wrong because the evidence proves them right, so they can move forward, apparently immune from any possibility of error. “We don’t believe things,” they say, “We only accept or allow what demonstrates certainty, hence we have knowledge.”

Even despite the fact that Rainier knows he does not know everything, he still feels confident in making a conclusion – well beyond the sphere of his knowledge, I might add – that God does not exist and even smugly laughs off the possibility as being akin to believing in the flying spaghetti monster because neither proposition has evidence supporting it.

Please read post #48, for a response to supposition.

Rainier, until all the facts are in, we have no intellectual right to claim any knowledge, all we, including you, have are beliefs.

The Six Blind Men and the Elephant is a revealing story about not “jumping to conclusions” based upon limited sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. Until “full-disclosure” about the universe happens, you only have a right to claim a belief, not certainty. Anything more is mere intellectual smugness and arrogance. The blind men in the story were absolutely certain of their knowledge that the elephant was a rope, a tree trunk, a pipe or fan. Perhaps they were completely justified in drawing that conclusion based upon their limited perspective.

Their error is precisely the one you have made – concluding that a perspective gives the whole picture – it is an error because it is blind to the remaining reality that is not attainable to your evidentiary based investigation. There may be more to the story than what can be attained from sensory based evidence.

Have a look at this picture (See below). What is it? Can your senses figure it out? Very few people who have not been “shown” by someone else can identify it. It has to be “revealed” to them. Perhaps that is the point of God’s word requiring revelation – we need to be shown because on our own senses just don’t reveal what might be “hidden” to them.

All we have are beliefs. We support these beliefs with “reasons” for believing and evidence is one kind of “reason for believing” things to be true. It is by far, not the only kind of “reason for believing.” To claim it is, is showing “blindness” to other possibilities. I hope, in your case, that the blindness is curable.
How does the old saying go? You can lead a horse to water, but…
 
As for the Bible not saying anything about me refusing the truth, I may be misunderstanding it.
Luke 21-First of all, I have learned not to take an indiscriminate literalist approach to scripture. Second, this is referred to as the author’s description of a prophecy of a sign of the approach of the end times which sign had come to fruition by the time that this gospel was written.
 
“I actually think I’m a biological algorithm with the illusion of free will that makes decisions based on how DNA and stimuli interacted during my development and how that development reacts to stimuli today”-You may want to find some information on the result of a photon striking the retina before you become too comfortable with this belief.
 
Ziggamafu said:
I don’t know if you’re referring to my OP or Rainer’s, but the Church teaches that reason and logic flow from the God who is Truth itself. That being the case, coupled with a dogmatic statement that His existence can be determined with certainty through logic alone, there should be an argument that cannot be logically refuted.
Click to expand...
I was referring to your original post and it looks like a lot has been said since I was here last.

A large problem is that we don’t know each other from Adam. I don’t know what you believe so if you where a Christian, quoting the Bible would have been the easiest way to gain common ground. It appears that you are not a Christian, so I will have to take this to a different common ground. And the common ground is our humanity.

As humans we are hard wired for the belief in the supernatural. Children have the innate ability to see a world that is infused with meaning and order. If I point to my dog, it will look at my finger. The dog will not see it as a sign for something beyond my finger.

My 5 year old daughter knows that when I point, it is a sign that means to look past my finger. She is hardwired to see signs not just the form.

So embed in human reason the universe has some type of meaning. Creation points to a creator. Now someone can be taught to be skeptical of this through a reductionist materialistic type world view but this just leads to total uncertainty; much like the dog sniffing the finger instead of turning around.
 
Rainier22 said:
CatsAndDogs

About all I can say is never say never. It has happened, and it will continue to happen. Who is and isn’t wise is completely subjective if you ask me.

I love the word Rainier too. Apparently it’s known from Peter Rainier, the navigator for George Vancouver. And of course Mt. Rainier isn’t too far from Vancouver.

I like the mountain more than the name though.
Click to expand...
I was refering to the french pronunciation of “Rainier”. Do you know it means “Wise Warrior” (from eventually] German: Reginar, ragin=advice[good-type presumably], hari/heri=army-guy).

Be wise, wise warrior. 🙂
 
“So here’s the deal. The Church teaches dogmatically that the existence of God may be known with certainty by the light of human reason alone. Ironically, as a Catholic, I have to take this dogma on faith because I have never seen an argument for God that is incapable of logical refutation. I have searched and studied for this super-proof to no avail. I completely understand and know that it is up to the individual to make a choice for or against God, and that some atheists may refuse God no matter what argument is presented. But according to the dogma of the Church, there should be an argument that is 100% reasonable, which makes no logical errors and cannot be refuted but only disagreed with. There should be an argument which leaves the atheist silent or angry, incapable of pointing out flaws in its logic and incapable of logically refuting it.”-Here you go: It has been established that life could not have come about by random chance. Life could not have been artificially “seeded”, either, due to the reason that life could not have appeared randomly; time constraints. There has not been enough elapsed time since the beginning of the universe for life to have occurred randomly. Because this is the case, it is incredibly obvious that there could not possibly have been enough time for any intra-universal entity capable of the aforementioned “seeding” to have randomly come about and evolved to the point of developing the technology necessary to perform this planting toward the artificial development of life, because THERE HAD NOT BEEN ENOUGH TIME FOR ANY LIFE TO COME ABOUT AT RANDOM, MUCH LESS LIFE CAPABLE OF CARRYING OUT SUCH AN UNDERTAKING.
This leads, seemingly inevitably, to the conclusion that an EXTRA-UNIVERSAL SOURCE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LIFE HAVING COME ABOUT ON EARTH.
 
“Cats and Dogs, I believe that Gerald L. Schroeder’s “Science of God” may be of help to you in that it may provide a cumulative ‘superproof’.”-Oops: This should also have been addressed to Ziggamafu.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top