The evidence of the existence of God

[casslean]

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.

I tend not to engage in the “give me proof” arguments because in most instances, people who ask for proof are really looking for an argument that they can show is “wrong”.

I prefer to put Pascal’s Wager to people - If I’m wrong and there is no God, what have I lost by believing? I gain strength and comfort and hope from my faith and my relationship with God and if I die and there is no God - what have I lost?

On the other hand, if I’m right and there is a God - what do you lose by not believing?

 

[SetInMotion]

I like some of the intelligent Design arguments, though not perfect, for several reasons.

Yet, some may consider the intelligent design arguments to be only evidence of ‘bad’ design, such as the ‘eye’, which they erroneously, arrogantly and presumptuously think is “poorly designed”. Well, even if they take that route, their own statement would argue for a designer still, even if one they think is a ‘poor’ one. Poor design is still designed, though I disagree with the poor part. I believe in wise design, not merely intelligent.

I also like, the design argument from necessity, such as the pocket watch, or self-replication pocket watch examples. Yet, these arguments, focus on the wrong thing, namely the pocketwatch to demonstrate intelligence, rather than the intelligence already in the scene (namely the person themselves, capable of recognizing design, which brings in a whole bunch with it).

I also like irreducible complexity.

However, Creation itself, is all around everyone, 24/7/365. All are without excuse, whether they asked or didn’t ask. Order, complexity, intelligence, recognizability, functionality, purpose, symbiotic, mathematical, etc.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It wasn’t wind, rain and sun erosion over “x” amount of time that brought it about, and it wasn’t by happenstance, neither was it squirrels burrowing into the rocks over a weekend, nor random explosion, or undirected thermal expansion and cooling.

They know for certain that it was designed. It is quite simple compared to the complex anatomy of the real persons themselves, and the multi-layer language code of their D.N.A. and the micro machines of that system that are all symbiotic together in their functional order, following the instructions within.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

However, Creation itself, is all around everyone, 24/7/365.

What about the leap years?

They know for certain that it was designed.

Who are those “they”?

 

[SetInMotion]

Who are those “they”?

“They” know who “they” are.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

“They” know who “they” are.

Maybe so, but I don’t. Want to help me?

 

[IWantGod]

Aquinas is begging the question.

Can you explain why you think he is begging the question?

 

[IWantGod]

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.

But that doesn’t tell us that there is such a thing as right and wrong, it just tells me that there may be good pragmatic reasons to behave a particular way assuming that i want to be social.

If it is truly wrong to push a granny down the stairs, that has nothing to do with practicality but rather it is to do with the activity itself in reference to a universal objective moral standard; a law about how a person ought to behave.

If that wasn’t the case, then no action would be immoral or moral; it would just be an expression of physical activity. If there were only two people in the world, and one pushed the other off a cliff, what would make that action wrong? One might seek practical reasons for not doing so based on preference or desire, but it certainly would be an error to say that it is wrong. In fact it would be delusional. There can only be such a thing as moral truth if God exists.

 

[Ghosty1981]

First off, my point here isn’t so much about the existence of an absolute, objective moral law, but rather that the existence of moral imperatives, which atheists certainly recognize, doesn’t prove the existence of God in any way. Just wanted to make that clear because I don’t want to be seen as arguing for something that I’m not.

That said…

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.

It isn’t a matter of wanting to be social. Being social in the natural sense is not a choice that humans make, but a biological imperative. An adult can choose to be hermit, but they can’t choose to stop being a social animal. An infant and child absolutely require social interaction and a stable community for their bodies and brains to even develop, and even the adult hermit is an exception that suffers many difficulties as a result. Being social isn’t a pragmatic choice for a human, it is an objective reality of our very natures.

If it is truly wrong to push a granny down the stairs, that has nothing to do with practicality but rather it is to do with the activity itself in reference to a universal objective moral standard; a law about how a person ought to behave.

It can be permissible to push Granny down the stairs even if it is circumstantial, and this is true even in Catholic moral law. Pushing Granny down the stairs is not absolutely wrong in every instance, for example if she is charging at your infant with a knife and intending to stab it. My point here is simply that even with firm objective rules there is nuance in how they are applied in given circumstances. I think you are referring specifically to murder, however, so I will address that.

The believer can say that murder is objectively wrong because God said so, while the atheist can say that it is objectively wrong because it breaks down the social fabric that is essential for human existence; the former appeals to Divine Law, and the latter appeals to Natural Law, but both are objective standards even if it can be difficult to discern the best course of action in a given circumstance. The atheist may have murkier guidelines and fewer restrictions in certain matters, but the basis of morality remains objective.

The bottom line is that human nature is an objective reality in relation to the individual, and human nature comes with some essential characteristics that provide moral guidelines for behavior. Obviously if we are looking for morality outside of human nature entirely then we must look to God, but when speaking of the individual we can indeed make objective determinations to a great degree through understanding human nature.

Peace and God bless!

 

[IWantGod]

It can be permissible to push Granny down the stairs even if it is circumstantial,

There is no such thing as permissible or wrong if only physical activity exists. It’s meaningless to begin with. That you happen to have a compulsion toward a particular end doesn’t get you to a moral truth.

 

[NJada]

This is pretty heavy stuff, for me at least, but I’ve found this video series extremely helpful. He really focuses on the fact that there is indeed evidence, through philosophical reason, that God cannot not exist, that God must exist, and that it is impossible that this is subject to change due to new scientific discoveries or anything. If you and your friends give a couple of these a watch, I think they will at the very least have to conclude they don’t know enough to call themselves atheist.

I’m sorry to hear about your friends’ situation. I’ll put them in my prayers.

 

[Ghosty1981]

There is no such thing as permissible or wrong if only physical activity exists. It’s meaningless to begin with. That you happen to have a compulsion toward a particular end doesn’t get you to a moral truth.

First off, we are talking about atheism, not materialism. They are not the same thing, even if many or most atheists are also materialists.

Second, on what grounds do you claim that there is no wrong if only physical reality exists? Human nature provides an objective foundation of right and wrong, and it is by this measure that atheists can determine moral right and wrong. The gravity of the wrong would be relative to how far it deviates from human nature. In this context some actions that are considered inherently evil in Catholic morality wpuld not be considered so when considering human nature from a purely social animal perspective, but both perspectives provide for objective moral laws.

The atheist is not rationally bound to take a purely materialistic, individualist perspective. Some of the societies with the strongest moral standards, such as Japanese culture, are predominantly atheist in practice (cultural vestiges of Shintoism not withstanding) but have a strong objective moral standard.

Peace and God bless!

 

[lelinator]

That you happen to have a compulsion toward a particular end doesn’t get you to a moral truth.

I haven’t read this entire discussion, so I may have missed it, but could you explain what you consider to be a 'moral truth’. Because the world seems to have a great deal of variation in what people consider to be moral truths.

So the first step in any discussion of moral truths is to determine what actually makes something a moral truth.

 

[PennyinCanada]

When you look at a mouse trap, it has the least amount of parts, that work together.

So it is with creation. From molecules which have an order and design, to creation that we can see, to the universe. Just understanding how an eye works, and how it communicates images to the brain so we have vision, is an incredible device. And you know what? We need vision, and we need everything in our body to work for us to live. It did not take a million years to develop an eye because we can’t survive without eyes. And hearts, and kidneys and livers. All these things work together in a complex way for us to live.

I see that and I say that someone had to have designed it. As sure as when I look at a car go by, I know someone was at the drawing board designing engines, how it would work together with the design of the wheels for traction, and that wonderful computer on board giving information to the driver.

There is a designer, and engineer, who put order into everything and everything works together, and is in balance.

 

[lelinator]

The problem with the argument from morality is that it presumes the existence of God at the outset. Because it places God in the very definition of morality. So you can’t help but conclude that God exists.

But the fact that there’s no universal standard of morality, even among theists, or even among Catholics, means that assigning an objective standard to morality is impossible, and if there’s no objective standard to morality, then there’s no reason to believe that morality is evidence of God. Rather it’s evidence of how theists delude themselves into seeing evidence of God where there actually is none.

 

[lelinator]

There is a designer, and engineer, who put order into everything and everything works together, and is in balance.

And this designer has a name…it’s called evolution.

 

[PennyinCanada]

And this designer has a name…it’s called evolution.

An animal cannot survive unless his brain is working, his kidneys are working, his heart is working, his reproductive system is working, and so on. There is no million years to tweek it, it all has to be systems go, or there’s no go.

 

[PennyinCanada]

There is a designer.
Just check out human DNA…

DNA strand from wikipedia…
Deoxyribonucleic acid is a molecule composed of two chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses. Wikipedia

How long is a DNA strand?

This allows the 3 billion base pairs in each cell to fit into a space just 6 microns across. If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2m long and all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System.

 

[lelinator]

An animal cannot survive unless his brain is working, his kidneys are working, his heart is working, his reproductive system is working, and so on.

There is no million years to tweek it, it all has to be systems go, or there’s no go.

Ummm…actually there are millions of years to tweak it, again…it’s called…

E … V … O … L … U … T … I … O … N

If you’re still confused…ask an adult.

 

[PennyinCanada]

If you’re still confused…ask an adult.

That’s a very cheeky answer.
Do you find it challenging to be kind to me because I hold a different opinion from you?
That’s a very small challenge. No one person can know all the secrets of the universe, but it is within our grasp to be kind. Sometimes that means biting your tongue, but I understand it was too hard to resist. I don’t want things to end badly for you though so I won’t hold it against you.

As for asking an adult, I am familiar with Michael Behe a molecular biologist. “Irreducible complexity”.

It’s unfortunate that you hold such a strong bias toward the existence of a loving God that wants to be your father. You are really missing out on something that will turn your understanding of the universe upside down. That is the grace I wish for you.

 

[lelinator]

That’s a very cheeky answer.

Thank you, some people might be a bit more offended.

Do you find it challenging to be kind to me because I hold a different opinion from you?

Pretty much everyone holds a different opinion than I do, so its not the opinion that you hold that I find provocative, rather it’s the unwarranted assurance with which you hold it. (Notice that I didn’t call it arrogance, because I don’t perceive it to be arrogance) But unwarranted self-assurance can make me testy.

I don’t want things to end badly for you though so I won’t hold it against you.

Trust me, I’ve taken every shot this forum can throw at me and I’m still here. But to their credit they could’ve made it harder. Hopefully at this point we have a bit of a truce.

You are really missing out on something that will turn your understanding of the universe upside down.

Actually, I consider myself to be a Christian, and some might consider me to be a shining example of one. But it’s not for me to say, and I actually don’t care. I am what I am, and I’m very much at peace with that. I’m not deluded about God, but at this point the existence of God doesn’t matter to me, because whether He’s there, or whether He isn’t, I have done well.