Proving God Exists

[AquinAugustine]

Nonetheless, regardless of the reason that birth defects and other unfortunate circumstances occur, it is not an aberration from the perception of God that one would develop by way of the Bible that He does allow these things to occur, and that He is also described, biblically, as all-loving.

 

[OTavern]

One of the best refutations of the argument from design is birth defects in my opinion. Why would a loving God do this to someone? This is what God did?

If God did exist, I’d still see no reason to worship him if he’s this ruthless of a jerk.

It seems to me that before blame is attributed to God for these malformities, it would be important to explore the “causes” of such conditions.

The use of thalidomide, for example caused many birth defects. Are you going to “blame” God for those, too, when there is a high probability that some human being(s) somewhere through ignorance, neglect or abrogation of their responsibilities unleashed that scourge on other humans? In fact, given the history of mankind, in particular during the past 50 years, of using/abusing dangerous chemicals in wanton or premature fashion, it is a wonder that such cases are not prevalent everywhere in the world.

Here are several examples:
A chemical called atrazine causes leopard frog testosterone to change into estrogen. What is happening is that male frogs are being found with eggs forming in their testes in the midwest United States. Atrazine is used as a pesticide on cornfields in the US.
Another study being done in Australia is finding fish gender biology changing so that eggs are being found in male fish. These fish are found downstream from a drug manufacturing company and the changes are linked to estrogen levels in the river.

Given these two cases and many other documented ones, such as Bhopal, Chernobyl, widespread use of other pesticides and herbicides, chemical food additives and manufactured drugs, it amazes me that someone, like you, who puts such store in evidence, would so quickly “blame God” when you haven’t even considered any evidence as to the potential causes of the deformities you posted.

Exposure to human developed and abused chemicals and radiation over the past centuries could very well have been the culprits in your examples, but your – pardon my pointing this out – “willingness to believe sans evidence” seems to have led you, dishonestly, I might add, to making a claim that is not substantiated by any of the evidence you claim to be the creed you supposedly live by.

Where is your proof that God is the culprit? Or are you being deliberately dishonest since you ostensibly do not believe such a being even exists?

 

[AquinAugustine]

Also, as far as evidences or answers to the “why” that you propose are concerned, I am going to relate what I remember and what I have been told by those who witnessed this event from my childhood from perspectives other than mine: My teenaged uncle and I, a six or seven year-old were rough housing in the former’s bedroom. My uncle lifted me into the air at what was to be, for reasons soon to be made obvious, the “finishing move” of this wrestling match. He subsequently body slammed me onto his bed, which resulted in my bouncing off of the bed and landing, temple-first, on one of the four points of his nightstand. At this point, blood began spurting from my head, and did not cease until my Great Uncle, at that time a pastor, was summoned, arrived, and prayed, trusting in God that I would be healed, and, I WAS!! According to the testimony of two eye witnesses of this occurence, my head did not stop bleeding as the result of the formation of a blood clot, but, in fact, WAS LITERALLY SEALED as they looked on.

 

[AquinAugustine]

I agree with you, OTavern, on the point that man-made causes, not originating from God, do bring about negative consequences for others, but it is evident to me that Rainier’s viewpoint is that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, then he absolutely would have prevented these occurences, although Scripture contradicts this viewpoint, attributing all three of the aforementioned to God, but demonstrating that God did not exempt human suffering, much less man-made human suffering, from the universe that He created.

 

[AquinAugustine]

Of course, I, possessing free will, the concept of causality having been defeated, as of now, according to Dr. Gerald Schroeder in “The Science of God”, could choose to attribute the occurence mentioned in the second-to-last post to any number of sources. This does not change the obvious.

 

[Rainier22]

I note you still have not responded to post # 72, which I had in the beginning of my response. Just an observation

Ha! I’m sorry - again! I answered it below with the refutation of the argument from design, but perhaps this video will help. It shows how even a clock that you see on your wrist can come about naturally. The video is designed to refute intelligent design, but I think it applies somewhat to what you’re saying. Either way, a free listen to Coldplay’s “Clocks” makes it worth it.

As for the general refutation of the design argument, generally it goes something like “then what created God?” That line of reasoning is explained here. I should have used YouTube earlier!

You miss the point. Metaphysically, it is impossible for a person to function in a mode or manner in which he or she does not exist.
To understand these abstract concepts, there must be something immaterial about you in order to do so. Show me justice. Show me honesty, etc. Also, how in the world do you come up with the idea that I think justice is subjective. Where did I ever say that. These are immaterial concepts which you can or should understand. Therefore there must be something immaterial in your existence which enables you to do so. That something we call the immortal rational soul. Created in Gods image.

Sorry, but I disagree. By that logic, it seems everything I imagine proves that I have an immaterial side. My own memory would prove a nonphysical, immaterial side of me. Each thought would.

In a sense, these immaterial things exist. But really, they don’t. A memory or thought process is a pattern of connecting electricity in the brain. Justice and beauty are in there too.

As for justice being subjective, just look at the difference in the Canadian and American judicial systems. Canada doesn’t believe in the death penalty; America does. Other civilizations think stoning is justice. Some people think drug use is immoral. Some don’t. There for bringing drug users to justice is either just or unjust according to who you talk to. If there is a true objective justice out there, no one has agreed on what it is.

Again, even if what you’re saying is true, you still have to establish that there is a “soul” and a “God” from which it comes from.

This is a convenient CYA argument if I ever heard one.

I don’t know what CYA means. Sorry.

I have to admit in my theistic ignorance, I do not know what this means. Please define or explain.

Ha! It’s my ignorance too! Someone had to tell me. You know how kids love to destroy things for fun? That’s basically what it means: fun in destroying things.

I thought I was discussing with someone who really wanted to know. If no answer can satisfy you, are you admitting you are doing all this just to take up others time and to speak at your atheists club on how yo got the Theists. I would honestly have expected more from you as you did sound reasonable, or was that too an illusion.

It’s very difficult to learn something from someone who doesn’t yet even understand the atheistic stance. We’re still in the review book so to speak. It’s pretty frustrating.

I looked at the photos on your reference. Truly these are tragic. And as usual, God gets the blame. You will do this so long as you do not believe in him, and this is Satan’s deception. Don’t believe in him or God, and if God, then all bad is caused by him.

Evil entered this world because of sin, original sin committed by man. Because of this, death, disease, evil entered the world. For God to have prevented this, it would have taken away free will where we can chose him. He does not force himself on us. We can accept him or, like you reject him. Thus consequences.

So God, the all loving, created a world where an extremely evil deity will constantly try to trick us into spending eternity in fire. But no, Satan and evil are made by the sin of man. What then did the sin of man come from? If God is omniscient, then he knew he was creating evil forces in man in the beginning, but he did so anyway. It’s almost like a cosmic game.

 

[AquinAugustine]

“If God is omniscient, then he knew he was creating evil forces in man in the beginning, but he did so anyway. It’s almost like a cosmic game.”-God created man with free will. Evil, in the sense of sin, is the absence of, or the turning away from, God.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

The universe started off as a singularity. Things that size actually do pop into existence randomly. I think they are doing some research with a hypothesis thinking that perhaps two of these things collided in their popping into existence. I’m not good in quantum physics. Ha - no one is good in quantum physics. “If quantum mechanics doesn’t scare you, then you don’t understand it.”

Things “popping into existence randomly” is actually quite an oversimplification. Being in high school, I can’t pretend to understand quantum physics either, but I do know this much about it: Even quantum mechanics does NOT propose that something can simply come from nothing. These events which you are referring to, where something comes from seemingly empty space, only occur in areas of high energy fluctuations, known as quantum energy fields.

Given that this singularity that we are referring to was the beginning of both matter and energy (which are related, as we of course know), it is not possible that matter and energy were the result of a quantum fluctuation, because the existence of an energy field would be necessary. Matter still can’t not come from non-matter according to natural law. But since we know it had to, something beyond natural law is suggested. Something… supernatural, if you will.

In short: cosmologically, atheists are still at a loss in terms of the first cause. The idea of something coming from nothing is decidedly absurd, and I find it quite ironic that someone might consider such a possibility but NOT consider God.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

(cont)

In regards to the problem of evil, there is a fairly simple answer. Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet.

God is love. That is His nature. Humans were created to love and be loved. By definition, however, love cannot be forced; it must be freely given. Hence, free will is necessary in order for love to exist. There must be a choice to love or not love.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

I wouldn’t say that most atheists could never be convinced. I think many do underestimate or underrepresent what it is that would convince them, but I don’t know that they’re in the majority. Personally, I’m especially stubborn on this point because I’ve become concerned with being skeptical of the accuracy of my view of the world, let alone the views of others. Don’t mistake my position for the norm.

I guess never is a strong word - and probably unfair. But there are people who have made up their minds. On the other hand, Christ seems to have chosen people like Paul to spread the Gospel. How much more credibility do you need than when you can get one who persecuted Christians to suddenly be the biggest distributor of Christianity?

That’s a big part of why I’d be so skeptical of the proposition. I don’t have the ability to understand or experience the supernatural, so I can’t see why I should be expected to. All I (or anyone else, in my opinion) can do is try to infer it from the natural.

Yes, that was my point. I’m in the same boat! Everyone who has faith has to one degree or another had to make the leap beyond what is tangible in this world to believe. Easier for some than others but regardless requires an ability to believe in that which you cannot see, hear, taste, smell or feel.

I’d have to think natural explanations are more likely here too -whether the sun dancing was fata morgana, the cromo effect, or whatever- because of how local the phenomena was, and because of what it would mean for the Earth or Sun to move like that.

Natural tendency to try to do that. I think the prolonged experiences over many months makes it a pretty amazing phenomena though!

 

[Rainier22]

Things “popping into existence randomly” is actually quite an oversimplification. Being in high school, I can’t pretend to understand quantum physics either, but I do know this much about it: Even quantum mechanics does NOT propose that something can simply come from nothing. These events which you are referring to, where something comes from seemingly empty space, only occur in areas of high energy fluctuations, known as quantum energy fields.

Given that this singularity that we are referring to was the beginning of both matter and energy (which are related, as we of course know), it is not possible that matter and energy were the result of a quantum fluctuation, because the existence of an energy field would be necessary. Matter still can’t not come from non-matter according to natural law. But since we know it had to, something beyond natural law is suggested. Something… supernatural, if you will.

In short: cosmologically, atheists are still at a loss in terms of the first cause. The idea of something coming from nothing is decidedly absurd, and I find it quite ironic that someone might consider such a possibility but NOT consider God.

Hey! I’m all sorts of excited because you look smart! I’m about as educated in quantum physics as a blade of grass, but I do recall several physicists mentioning things coming into existence completely randomly. I most certainly don’t know the first cause. As I’ve said several times now, I’m not sure there was a first cause. I actually like the idea that time is somewhat an illusion, and that the first cause is technically still happening and will always be happening - as well as the last cause. It seems simpler, but of course I have no reason to believe that.

Here are some links to those things popping into existence. Quantum physics continually blow my mind. I’m going to go in my house, and then open the door to my house, and then unlock it. However, I’ve already unlocked the door from the inside because I exist in there as well as out here. Awesome!


“Quantum theory says virtual particles can pop into existence for the briefest of moments before returning to nothingness.”

“Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of “nothing” (vacuum fields conceptually analogous to lines of force between magnetic poles) for extremely short periods of time and then disappear again.”

 

[Rainier22]

(cont)
In regards to the problem of evil, there is a fairly simple answer. Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet.

God is love. That is His nature. Humans were created to love and be loved. By definition, however, love cannot be forced; it must be freely given. Hence, free will is necessary in order for love to exist. There must be a choice to love or not love.

So even in God’s omnipotence, he couldn’t create humans so they would always love?

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Hey! I’m all sorts of excited because you look smart! I’m about as educated in quantum physics as a blade of grass, but I do recall several physicists mentioning things coming into existence completely randomly. I most certainly don’t know the first cause. As I’ve said several times now, I’m not sure there was a first cause. I actually like the idea that time is somewhat an illusion, and that the first cause is technically still happening and will always be happening - as well as the last cause. It seems simpler, but of course I have no reason to believe that.

Here are some links to those things popping into existence. Quantum physics continually blow my mind. I’m going to go in my house, and then open the door to my house, and then unlock it. However, I’ve already unlocked the door from the inside because I exist in there as well as out here. Awesome!


“Quantum theory says virtual particles can pop into existence for the briefest of moments before returning to nothingness.”

“Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of “nothing” (vacuum fields conceptually analogous to lines of force between magnetic poles) for extremely short periods of time and then disappear again.”

A few things on this:

First of all, asserting that things pop into existence “completely randomly” is just quite an argumentum ad ignorantiam. ie, “We don’t understand the behavior of subatomic particles; therefore, they are completely random.” Quite a scientifically irresponsible conclusion, IMHO.

Secondly, as I said before, “things popping randomly in and out of existence” is a phenomenon which only occurs under certain conditions. It occurs in a “quantum vacuum.” The conditions of this quantum vacuum require that energy be pre-existent. Therefore, it cannot explain the origin of energy.

So even in God’s omnipotence, he couldn’t create humans so they would always love?

That would be quite a contradiction, don’t you think? Creating something that is not able to not love means that it can’t love, because love is a FREE CHOICE by definition.

 

[OTavern]

As for the general refutation of the design argument, generally it goes something like “then what created God?”

You’re not serious are you? That remark demonstrates how little you understand of what God could possibly be.

As for justice being subjective, just look at the difference in the Canadian and American judicial systems. Canada doesn’t believe in the death penalty; America does. Other civilizations think stoning is justice. Some people think drug use is immoral. Some don’t. There for bringing drug users to justice is either just or unjust according to who you talk to. If there is a true objective justice out there, no one has agreed on what it is.

By this reasoning, we could easily throw out all scientific thought and claim science is a subjective field because there is not “universal” agreement on most, if not all scientific theories. You are basically begging the question.

It is also definitely not true that “no one” has agreed on what objective justice is. You may not claim to have a clue about it, but most people would agree that justice means treating “equal cases equally.” Human beings deserve equal treatment because basically human beings are all equally human. That is objective justice. John Rawls does a pretty good job defining it and as much as I don’t agree with much of Kant’s thinking, his “universalizability principle” works quite well as a basis for objective justice.

Most people on earth would agree that murder is wrong, that taking the belongings of others and dishonesty are not kosher. The rules are generally agreed upon, it is the application of the rules that may cause some issues, but like scientific thought these can be resolved with time. That in itself does not make the endeavor subjective, as you claim.

Resolution of the problem of drug use, for example, hinges upon harm to oneself and others - most people with a developed conscience would agree that if use of a particular drug does an X amount of harm to human beings it would be morally wrong to use it. The answer lies in the permissible amount of harm given potential good, balanced by restriction of freedoms. There may also be other considerations that apply.

No one said ethics would be simple or black and white, but neither is most of the content of human inquiry. That in itself does not make it subjective in essence. Otherwise you could claim that anytime humans disagree on any question in any field, subjectivity rules. A simpleton who does not accept that 2+2=4, on your criteria of the fact of human disagreement, would then make mathematics also subjective. Likewise, the existence of morally corrupt or ethically unenlightened individuals, no matter what their number, does not allow us to conclude ethics is subjective.

The existence of a race of blind human beings living in the Amazon does not thereby disprove the existence of light or colour merely because the entire group does not “see” these.

I am having difficulty understanding how you still adhere to the personal belief that you don’t have beliefs, only knowledge of truth confirmed by evidence, when most of your assertions boil down to unfounded and biased opinions, rather than well thought-out and verifiable reasoning.

To be clear:

Your conclusion
…bringing drug users to justice is either just or unjust according to who you talk to. If there is a true objective justice out there, no one has agreed on what it is.

Parallel argument:
…bringing rapists and murderers to justice is either just or unjust according to who you talk to [For example, if you talk to the murderers and rapists themselves, they would tell you they should not be brought to justice]. If there is objective justice out there, no one * have agreed on what it is.

I am underwhelmed by that powerful argument.*

 

[OTavern]

Hence, free will is necessary in order for love to exist. There must be a choice to love or not love.

I would argue that free will is necessary for our very existence as conscious beings. How can a conscious being have distinct personal identity unless some level of “free agency” is present? A person could not "be aware of his/her own existence unless that existence has some distinct essence that is “distinguished from” all else, including God. Hence to exist as a distinct conscious being, there must be some capacity to be a “prime mover” or “initiator of activity,” in other words to have “free will.” For a being to be conscious of itself as its own identity, it must have at its core the ability to “create itself” – to implement free will.

That free will in itself does not make us “separate” from God, but distinct because God, in creating “free agents,” must withdraw exercise of His power within the domain of the free agent. However, to draw the agent back to God, who is the source of all being, love is necessary – love freely given and freely returned. Love in the sense of the will, the entire self, freely given over to its “completion” in God. Without God, the source of all being, the “free will” is destined to existence within a void, in nothingness.

I would also suggest that at the root, the exercise of free will removed from functioning within “Being” or “complete existence” is precisely what evil is. Free will is necessary to be who we are, but exercise of that will in a direction away from Perfect Being towards “illlusion” and imperfection creates evil.

 

[bobzills]

is general relativity true? i don’t know, and neither do you. the evidence for it is as good as we get for theories, but it’s not perfect. for one thing, it’s incompatible with quantum field theory, which is also profoundly successful in its predictive abilities as a theory. .

Could you explain please as to how general relativity is incompatible with quantum field theory?

 

[Karlsruhe]

God’s being is evident, for non of us is existing out of himself. No human ever could create anything living - not ever a seed for the simplest grass. If “natur” as alleged had “created” or grown out of itself as it is, it wouldn’t be in total harmony, but in chaos like chancer. Not mutating for the besser, but into nothing. The world itself youldn’t be, as nothing grows out of the nothing.
GOD IS as we pray THOU ART (in there heavens) and that’s all there’s to it. Believe it or let it. You’ll see anywy one day.

Quite frequently we meet the situation, that in smalltalk conversations; let it be in working environment or wherever, the question appears „to die – what’s after“.

Weirdly enough, both – believer as nonbeliever react very similar, when I make clearly understood, that I’m convinced and absolutely sure „to land in heaven“.

Most of them react 50% amused and 50% interested like; well, couldn’t it be hell after all too?! What makes you so sure “in heaven” what about if you land up nowhere at all, and all about heaven and hell is fake?

My answer always sound like the following:
“It’s so clear to be heard out of many of Jesus words referring to just this question e.g. in Joh 14,2 where Jesus pointed out, that He will prepare a place for us in the house of His Fathers – or take 100 other verses in the Holy Bible., such as Luk 23,43
And:
Would have Jesus, would God have accomplished this unbelievably huge action of soteriology, passion of Jesus generated, if it was meaningless to our real and ultimate live in the Kindom of God?! No!

Therefore everyone of us dies instantaneously into the justice of God, seeing God himself this very day he dies – the most important minutes of his life.

Might we call ourselves Christians if we doubt this? If a friend tell us something, we take it as fact. How much more than a friend is Jesus Christ?!
Reconsidering those facts, we, being Christans, do have lots of sources of pride and joy. So why on earth do we walk around with faces that mostly don’t express joy at all. And what about love towards anybody?

 

[john_doran]

Could you explain please as to how general relativity is incompatible with quantum field theory?

general relativity is non-renormalizable, which means that efforts to apply the mathematical formalism of QM to GR result in variables with infinite values that cannot be eliminated.

less technically, when one analyzes arbitrarily small distances in GR, one finds that space-time becomes infinitely curved.

the main difficulty, it seems, is that QM is a background dependent theory, while GR is background independent; that is to say, QM assumes a background of time and space in or on which particle reactions occur, whereas in GR, space and time are actually generated by the equations.

it’s hard to see how to reconcile such enormously different formalisms. loop quantum gravity (or quantum geometry) and m-theory (i.e. string theory) are two such attempts; neither is very successful.

 

[john_doran]

Here are some links to those things popping into existence. Quantum physics continually blow my mind. I’m going to go in my house, and then open the door to my house, and then unlock it. However, I’ve already unlocked the door from the inside because I exist in there as well as out here. Awesome!


“Quantum theory says virtual particles can pop into existence for the briefest of moments before returning to nothingness.”

“Virtual particles are subatomic particles that form out of “nothing” (vacuum fields conceptually analogous to lines of force between magnetic poles) for extremely short periods of time and then disappear again.”

the quantum vacuum is not “nothing”; it is at the very least a spatial manifold that is full of quantum mechanical probability waves that are continually collapsing and expanding.

 

[Karlsruhe]

Seemingly rather strange, that we should in the terms of God
Discuss the situation of “big bang”, general relativity. All theories had beem mere theory and lost all of it’s validity, as soon as a new Theory to the theme appeared. Fact is, that out of nothing, nothing can appear.
There is no way for an earth or a universe to emerge, if not God, who always was and forever will be, is there to create.

Poor things we’d be, if we depend our believe in God in the strength of an up made theory about the ever so funny „big bang“, excogitated by atheists who in a childish way, only believe what they can understand.

Well, Got remains non-understandable forever for human kind. Most likely even the Angels and all who are in heaven, will never understand God neither. No, they won’t, for God is who He is. (2Mose 3,14)

Besides: There always have been und always will be things we’ll never understand. So let’s stick to those we do understand. But as far as God is concerned, we will see Him with our own eyes after we died – and we will life forever in Gods kingdom IF WE BELIVED IN GOD. If not, we might further disguss with Mr. Satan and his crew about the theory of ways and means the world might have originated without Gods creation

Nobody ever could presend believe to anyone. Believe and faith in God is to be found by anyone quite allove für himself. It will remain a matter between God himself and every single person, as every living person originates in God and will return to God one day. If on the other hand he’ll stay with God then, is another question.