The evidence of the existence of God

[SPBlitz]

Well, because it’s the only approach that has ever provided independent, verifiable truths about our world. As Dawkins said, “it works… b*tches.”

That approach is hardly begging the question.

I agree that the scientific method works. Yes, the scientific method has led to great progress and allowed us to do amazing things. All this means is that the scientific method is useful. I don’t know how you can go from ‘this is useful for gaining knowledge’ to ‘this is the only way to gain knowledge’. If you are going to make such a sweeping claim as that, then the burden of proof is on you.

Yes, scientism does beg the question. Scientism boils down to.

1. All grounds for belief come for the scientific method.
2. This is true because everything we know to be true is verifiable from the scientific method.
3. Any belief that isn’t verifiable from the scientific method is ungrounded, because of Premise 1.
   Textbook begging the question.

 

[lelinator]

What?? What? No way.
You’re a rock star!
Hope you didn’t hurt yourself. That’s a tough one.

It’s now been 48 hours of me biting my tongue.

But alas the streak is going to have to end here, because there’s something that I think needs to be said:

Suspending @Bradskii again was simply asinine.

There, I feel better now.

 

[PickyPicky]

Suspending @Bradskii again was simply asinine

Has that happened? Puerile!

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Suspending @Bradskii again was simply asinine.

There, I feel better now.

Now I feel very bad. Had no idea. He was never impolite, always rational and kind. Very disappointing. And not just suspended for a week or two… really banned. I will miss him.

 

[goout]

PennyinCanada:

What?? What? No way.
You’re a rock star!
Hope you didn’t hurt yourself. That’s a tough one.

It’s now been 48 hours of me biting my tongue.

But alas the streak is going to have to end here, because there’s something that I think needs to be said:

Suspending @Bradskii again was simply asinine.

There, I feel better now.

My take on the particular poster was that he was reflexively combative.
And he also reflexively punching straw men rather than engaging in productive conversation. At some point that is not conversation, it’s agendizing.

But, the ban is probably realistic. You have to wonder why an atheist would be spending hours and hours and hours of his life talking about God on a Catholic forum.
That’s a whole lot of God-concern for one who thinks those he are talking about are fools.

 

[SPBlitz]

I agree, while I feel he was always a little abrasive, he was definitely one of the atheists on the forum I respected most. He had interesting insights and even got me to think a bit harder on certain topics.

 

[PickyPicky]

When I happened, apropos something or other, to mention than I was about to undergo surgery, he was the only poster to give me words of comfort. Banned? Ridiculous!

 

[PickyPicky]

But, the ban is probably realistic. You have to wonder why an atheist would be spending hours and hours and hours of his life talking about God on a Catholic forum.

I have to think that was his business. You think it realistic because he posted often? How odd.

 

[Pattylt]

I, too, am very disappointed to hear this. Yes, he was sorta on my team but he was usually polite and very knowledgeable about catholic beliefs. The only time I saw him getting snarky was when his frustration level rose too high because someone wouldn’t answer him and kept deflecting his questions. To be fair, I’m sure I haven’t read all his posts so there may have been some that violated the rules beyond acceptability.

He will be missed.

 

[goout]

goout:

But, the ban is probably realistic. You have to wonder why an atheist would be spending hours and hours and hours of his life talking about God on a Catholic forum.

I have to think that was his business. You think it realistic because he posted often? How odd.

A person who is atheist
spends hours concerned about God
talking about God with Catholics on a Catholic forum
in a combative sort of way…

That doesn’t strike you as odd?
Anyway, not my subject and not my concern. Just wanted to make a reply.

 

[VeryBlessed]

I’m going back to the OP’s question. I appreciate your concern for your classmates. At that age I surely did believe that God created me but I would have had a hard time raising my hand due to peer pressure. And with the way that the insulting and belittling tone of atheism seems to be winning the day in our society, it is especially hard for the young generation to admit to faith in God. I’m so glad you had the courage to raise your hand. Way to go. Don’t let peer pressure define you!

Regarding Gods existence? I know he exists because of what he has done in my life - the beautiful changes He has brought forth in my life since I stepped out in faith and committed to following him. This is, of course, subjective. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Also, for many years now I’ve held tightly to the truth expressed in Pascal’s wager (the argument that it is in one’s own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise). If I believe in God and am wrong I end up the same as everyone else after death. But if I disbelieve in God and he exists? The consequences of being wrong that way are cataclysmic. If you’re gonna reject God, I desperately hope you are right, but I very greatly fear that you are wrong.

 

[VeryBlessed]

I’m going to throw another thought out there. If an all powerful God exists, then clearly, he could put before us some objective proof of his existence. But I don’t think He would ever do that, and perhaps, here’s why. It violates another principle, namely, that of free will. He gives us absolute freedom to believe and act whatever way we want. If he were to objectively prove his own existence to us, that would very greatly undermine free will. If there was objective proof of God’s existence we would have no choice but to believe in Him. And no choice means no free will.

Of course, the Christian belief is that God created us with free will, so that real love would be possible between him and us. He risks losing us so that real love might exist between Him and his creation. Manipulated puppets cannot love their maker.

 

[buffalo]

I wonder why the first atheist did not murder the second.

 

[IWantGod]

If there was objective proof of God’s existence we would have no choice but to believe in Him. And no choice means no free will.

I disagree. Even if we innately knew that there was a God, we would still have a choice to make, we would still have freewill. But i agree that God chooses not to be obvious for reasons that i assume to be a reflection of his wisdom. Perhaps not being so obvious increases the possibility of salvation.

 

[VeryBlessed]

Even if we innately knew that there was a God, we would still have a choice to make, we would still have freewill.

You’re absolutely right. People still, for instance, choose to smoke cigarettes even long after objective proof exists that they are harmful. I perhaps meant, no reasonable choice. We all of us have the right to knowingly choose very foolishly even in the weightiest of matters. I’ve certainly exercised that right many times.

 

[lelinator]

People still, for instance, choose to smoke cigarettes even long after objective proof exists that they are harmful. I perhaps meant, no reasonable choice.

But here’s what’s odd. In the case of cigarettes for example, the more information that I have the more likely that I am to make a rational choice. Even to the point of showing me graphic pictures of people with lung cancer. So in every conceivable case, to make a rational choice, the more information the better.

But it seems that in God’s case He’s chosen to limit the amount of available information. And yet He still expects us to make a rational choice.

So it would seem logical, that the reason that we don’t have more information about the existence of God, is because there is no God.

 

[Pattylt]

I’ve always had trouble with the hidden ness of God. He wouldn’t have to write His name in the stars but if we actually heard from Him when deep in prayer or even had an undisputed miracle like an amputee growing back a leg, the Christians would be shouting it from the rooftops, not suddenly being worried that their free will was gone. God doesn’t seem to want to be known, just believed. His hidden nature was a big problem for me and still is.

 

[VeryBlessed]

But it seems that in God’s case He’s chosen to limit the amount of available information. And yet He still expects us to make a rational choice.

I’ve always had trouble with the hidden ness of God.

I know, I know!! Even as a person of faith, trust me, that is frustrating. People question me about why I believe in God and ask me to prove it, and I sound like a babbling idiot because I too lack those big objective convincing proofs. My proofs are subjective, enough to keep me very committed, but still lacking that objective-proof punch. I especially enjoy the Santa / Easter bunny / tooth fairy invectives… In truth most of us now “firmly established in the faith” started the journey not at all sure God was there. We gave him a trial run and he delivered enough for us to stay committed. If you don’t believe in God, all I’d ask you is to allow for the possibility that your conclusion might be wrong. Following despite the unprovable nature of my belief has revolutionized my life…

 

[Dan_Defender]

If you don’t believe in God, all I’d ask you is to allow for the possibility that your conclusion might be wrong.

I know atheists who admit this but have a very casual attitude about it. They say: ok if I die and face God then in that very unlikely scenario I will argue my case successfully, point out the many times He could have shown me his existence and didn’t, etc. Hey why not, it’s call a judgment!
I say: ok, good luck with that, because at that point you may receive perfect memory and every thought and word will be crystal clear so your own ‘arguments’ may condemn you! Not that I agree that arguing is the nature of the particular judgment.

 

[VeryBlessed]

ok if I die and face God then in that very unlikely scenario I will argue my case successfully,

That ice is too thin for me. If I can out-argue or out-think God in any single argument, if I am smarter than God in any way, then he can’t be God and I too would be an atheist.