The evidence of the existence of God

[englands123]

That’s a fair question.

I would like to think no.

But without God in my life who knows what would happen. Remorse is a huge thing to me.

 

[englands123]

My life would be a lot easier that’s for sure. But I have been fortunate and returned to the lord. I hope one day you too Fred .

 

[STT]

Now I am a firm believer in the existence of God, but most of my friends are atheist (even though they are baptized Catholic and are preparing for confirmation this year) and I would like to know the best evidence for His existence.

The only evidence is to meet Him personally.

 

[MJDorry]

The fact that his disciples were ready to die for him.

It sounds nice, but remember that Squeeky was willing to die AND kill for Charles Manson, so you can’t necessarily infer divinity from degree of fanaticism.

 

[lelinator]

The fact that his disciples were ready to die for him.

if the measure of divinity is the willingness of one’s followers to die in your name, then history is full of Gods.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Nihilo:

Then I’m sorry for you. You don’t understand that the smartest non-believers recognize it as begging the question and tautological. We do not need to disagree with them to retain our faith,

I do not disagree to retain my faith, I disagree because you and they are wrong. That certain effects necessitate an ultimate first cause is not trivial and is not a tautology. Nor do Thomists beg the question. Given how comprehensive and systematic the system and arguments put forth by Thomists, to simply wave a hand and call it begging the question is itself an act of begging the question against their arguments.

It isn’t. That doesn’t even make sense. On its face it’s silly.

No, that’s classic begging the question right there.

Stating a fact is not a tautology (not even talking about the cosmological arguments anymore), which is how you seem to define it. That itself is a nonsensical definition.

A logical tautology is when the conclusion is the same as the premise.

I know. So what is a fact? It is a true proposition, yes? Or something similar? So if you’re stating a fact, then that’s your premise, and when you show logically that your conclusion is directly shown in your premise, then your conclusion is a restatement of your premise, which is a tautology, as you just said, after I already said it previously.

A conclusion following from a premise is not a tautology.

The premise being the conclusion is a tautology. A is true because A is true. That’s a tautology.

True propositions are all tautological. The only things that are true that are not tautological, are ostensive definitions. “The sun is real” is a tautology,

Yeah, it’s really not. You can’t predicate the existence of a thing from its concept alone.

When you point to God, what are you pointing at? And how do you prove that you’re not begging the question in calling what you’re pointing at God, when the atheist doesn’t grant you God in the first place?

The arguments establish that there is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, intentional, pure act of subsistent being that is the uncaused original and conserving cause of all other types of being apart from which no other thing could possibly exist.

If you’re only objection is using the word God for it, I don’t know what to tell you other than say it’s a semantic objection.

 

[lelinator]

The arguments establish that there is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, intentional, pure act of subsistent being that is the uncaused original and conserving cause of all other types of being apart from which no other thing could possibly exist.

I must take exception to your use of that word. It may be a matter of semantics, but unless one qualifies its use I don’t think that metaphysical arguments for God actually establish anything. Except perhaps that humans are capable of lower level reasoning.

 

[Kullervo]

No it’s not a definitive proof, but it’s another hint. And there are a lot of them.

 

[Kullervo]

It’s not definite proof, but it’s another hint. Nobody dies for a spaghetti monster.

 

[whatistrue]

The fact that his disciples were ready to die for him.

I think a better argument would be that they would rather die than deny the resurrection. My understanding is that most of the early martyrs could have escaped execution by simply saying “we made up the part about Him coming back to life” or something similar.

Ok, then that exposes two different meanings of “evidence.” I use the version of evidence that is independent, consistent, and works for everybody

And given that statement, all you have to do is say that you don’t believe it; that it doesn’t work for you. Rather nice to be able to defeat any argument (at least in your mind) by a simple statement, whether true or not, eh?

The problem is that Christians claim that this God character, who is apparently male, created the world in seven days, hears all our thoughts and knows everything.

At least try to argue against what your opponent actually states. While there are some groups and individuals that subscribe to the 6 (not 7 - day 7 was for rest in the story) day creation narrative, it is not a core belief of all Christians. At least 2 factual errors in a single sentence - not looking good from the credibility angle.

 

[Wesrock]

God in his divinity also has no sex. He’s not male or female. A sex only comes into play in Christian theology when discussing the human nature he assumed at the Incarnation.

 

[MamaJewel]

I like the argument from morality. In a nutshell, if there is no God, if you and I are only matter whose ultimate fate is cosmic dust, then there is no basis for morality. There is no difference between crushing a rock and killing a person, in the big picture. So if a person is willing to admit morality, a person should admit God exists.

I’m not sure what morality has to do with God’s existence.
People can be moral without God. If this is the only life we get and we’re worm food or cremains after we die, then why would a non-believer kill another person who faces that very same scenario after death?
Who is anyone to take another life?

If a person isn’t out killing just because of a belief in God, then that isn’t good.
We don’t kill other human beings because we are all in the same boat. I wouldn’t want to be killed, or have someone kill my family members, friends, or neighbors, so why would I kill?
The same applies to other negative actions.

I’m very interested in the topic of this thread, but I’m not understanding what you are trying to convey.

 

[VictoriaAdAeternam]

People just going through the motions because everyone else is. Our Bishops used to ask them questions before they were confirmed, though I’m not sure what the result was should the answer(s) had been wrong. At any rate I fear it’s been this way a long time. When I was confirmed, certainly nobody claimed to be “atheist” though many fell away later.

 

[SetInMotion]

Now I am a firm believer in the existence of God, but most of my friends are atheist… and I would like to know the best evidence for His existence.

How about some common sense?

A parable of sorts:

I am a firm believer that Abraham Lincoln existed. I never met him face to face, and he existed before me. I only read about him in a book, a biography, that detailed his historical endeavors, and interactions with others. Many saw him, many heard him, and he accomplished many deeds among mankind. His attributes were recorded, his height, weight, build, colour, clothes, facial features, and mannerisms. He even ruled over a whole nation of people at one time. He even had a vice-representative, which was sometimes partially seen by some, and not at all by others. It is all recorded, and there are many documents that corroborate his existence.

I have a Bible in my hand …

I am a firm believer that God exists …

 

[Dan_Defender]

The point is, morality must come from God. From a purely materialistic point of view, such as that advocated by Nietzsche, there is no reason for it, especially knowing that there is no ultimate meaning and consequences. So if there is a natural morality preventing the average person from hurting/killing others, then it must come from God.

You may disagree and that’s fine. I’m done with this thread.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The point is, morality must come from God. From a purely materialistic point of view, such as that advocated by Nietzsche, there is no reason for it, especially knowing that there is no ultimate meaning and consequences. So if there is a natural morality preventing the average person from hurting/killing others, then it must come from God.

Not true at all. It is sufficient for the atheist to know that human nature is fundamentally social and that our individual development and well-being is directly derived from our social connections. Since humans are necessarily social beings it follows that actions that break the social fabric are naturally wrong, so things like theft, murder, and rape violate what we can call natural moral law.

Moral commandments from God are not at all necessary for recognizing most immoral acts as immoral simply because these acts are violations of fundamental human nature. Materialism doesn’t automatically lead to the individualism of Nietzsche, and I would argue that his beliefs were extremely unnatural based on what we know of human nature.

The argument of God from morality isn’t truly an argument, it’s a sentiment felt by some who already believe in God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Wesrock]

Believing in God is not necessary to have a moral compass. Most atheists also reject the notion of any objective morality, though.

 

[MamaJewel]

Please don’t leave the thread.
I was a convert to the catholic faith and a legit practicing catholic for 20 years, then poof, God left me. I kid you not, right as I walked into my room. I was about to pray or might have been praying, but it was like a wall. I had no belief in god anymore. I make Christians mad because I say that god left me.

But I’m still the same person I was before. I strive to live by the golden rule because without God, this life is literally all I and my fellow humans have. For me, there is nothing beyond death. It would be a travesty and a tragedy to destroy another life because the moment that person died, it would be the total end for that human being.

Thus the impetus to live a decent moral life.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

The idea that some people hold back from doing bad things only because they might be punished is, like I said, terrifying. Let me ask you: if you lost your belief in God, would you go out and kill anyone you didn’t like? Steal from people and stores simply because you wanted certain things?

I have been around the block many times during many years. I have seen this question answered by many Christians affirmatively. They said that if they would not be afraid of the punishment in hell, they WOULD commit all sorts of heinous acts, murders, rapes, etc. I doubt that they were serious about it, most likely they just wanted to pull our legs. But, who knows?

On the other hand they also said that they would be delighted to commit some juicy sexual sins. Maybe they were jealous of the rest of us.

 

[SetInMotion]

I make Christians mad because I say that [G]od left me.

It’s right in Romans 1:

Rom_1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom_1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

It’s even in the OT:

1Sa_16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.

The only issue is, the person turned away from God first and refused to hear any longer, it’s called the unpardonable sin.

1Ti_4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Mat_13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Act_28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.