The evidence of the existence of God

[Dan_Defender]

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.

Some people just dream up anything in order to choose themselves over God. Very unwise.

 

[IWantGod]

I know atheists who admit this but have a very casual attitude about it.

It’s so casual i can tell they don’t really give much thought to the premise that there is no God…

Still waiting for an atheist to admit that they really don’t want to believe in God. There must be someone out there… somewhere

 

[VeryBlessed]

Still waiting for an atheist to admit that they really don’t want to believe in God. There must be someone out there… somewhere

I have a great CD by Edward Sri about relativism. He cited an example of something similar to what you describe. He spoke with a college age young man who believed in God but had rejected the concept of moral absolutes. Edward reasoned with him and got nowhere. At the end of the conversation he said, “well, go off and pray about it.” The next day the young man sought him out and told him that in prayer he saw that the REAL reason he had rejected moral absolutes is that he wanted to keep sleeping with his girlfriend. Edward then made the point that there is often another more personal reason behind the stated reason. Perhaps that is why we hear the “could God create a rock he couldn’t lift” sort of argument. I suspect the real reason often has much to do with the concept that if the Christian God does exist it may demand something of me…

 

[Ghosty1981]

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.

It sounds like me leading up to my conversion.

An atheist who spends their time honestly engaging believers is a seeker, not an adversary.

I don’t know why he was banned, and I won’t comment on it specifically, but I for one think we are better off as a forum when we welcome atheists and other non-Catholics to challenge us to present the best side of our Faith.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

Still waiting for an atheist to admit that they really don’t want to believe in God. There must be someone out there… somewhere

I was an atheist who didn’t want to believe in God. I was a true atheist in that I said if their was a God I would deny Him. In the end I was compelled by reason to abandon such foolishness, and ultimately I came to know Divine Love, but I must admit that some part of me still wishes that God wasn’t real.

I’ve come to love God, but my personal inclination has always been to reject a higher power. I have the belief of someone who has come to know God despite my best efforts and inclination. I’m all too familiar with His Grace.



Peace and God bless!

 

[Pattylt]

I joined to learn Catholicism from Catholics. I knew the Protestant views and also knew that their position on Catholics was…incomplete or just plain wrong as I’ve had Catholic friends. I’m not exactly a seeker, more just a curious human trying to understand belief from a believers perspective.

I call myself agnostic because I don’t reject God outright. I just lost the ability to believe. I’ll always be open to being wrong. I like the idea of a Good God, a father figure, an omnipotent being. It would just take some personal experience of God to change my course. Others tell me they’ve have them, they’ve experienced God, they’ve had something that assured them God exists. I’m waiting but not holding my breath! I’m not rejecting, I’m just not forcing it either…been there, done that. It’s exhausting and painful and I’m in a good place.

 

[PennyinCanada]

If you’re still confused…ask an adult.

It seems that renowned Yale computer scientist has given up Darwinism, with remorse. "The New York Times called him a ‘rock star’ " so I my thoughts went to you of course, lelinator. Enjoyed the coincidence that I just gave you the handle of rock star. He credits 3 books for changing his mind.

https://stream.org/renowned-yale-computer-science-prof-leaves-darwinism/

 

[steve-b]

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

Great picture

 

[IWantGod]

An atheist who spends their time honestly engaging believers is a seeker, not an adversary.

After reading this i must admit that it would be wise to be prudent about agendas, since an adversarial impression could be a veiled cry for God.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s exhausting and painful and I’m in a good place.

It’s not for us to judge. Perhaps you just want an honest faith, and not a wish. Perhaps that’s why you come to the forums. So you haven’t really given up on God after-all.

 

[goout]

At the same time, self reflection and honest appraisal is necessary for everyone, and some questions need to be asked.

For example, my daughter is barely culturally Catholic and almost reflexively combative over Catholicism. But she wanted a Church wedding in the worst way. And so I raised the obvious question:
““Why do you want to be married in the Church? What are you doing and why are you doing it? Your life is a contradiction.”” She hadn’t thought about it. Self reflection is necessary for a change of heart, or “repentance”.

These are tough questions. When I reverted my faith became immersed in all the externals and lacked Christian discipleship, real conversion, real repentance, real reparations that were my responsibility. Others brought these obvious questions to the forefront. These questions are productive. They should be asked in order that self reflection can happen.

The presence of atheists here on a steady basis brings that question to the surface, not to chase them away, but to think in a real way.
If atheism is true, why are you spending your life here of all places?

 

[Pattylt]

Depends on the day whether I’ve given up on God or not. It’s why I don’t call myself an atheist but agnostic. I’m still curious and would really like to know but until I actually sense the divine in some way to assure…not guarantee…that it exists, I just can’t believe!

So, no, I don’t reject God nor do I deny the possibility that He exists. Right now the probability is that He does not.

 

[Pattylt]

If atheism is true, why are you spending your life here of all places?

I’m retired and it’s a hobby. It’s also not the only forum I’m involved in. Pretty simple!

 

[FredBloggs]

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.

Well, I never said, “this is the only way to gain knowledge.”

I said it’s the only approach that has ever provided independent, verifiable truths about our world.

But if you class “knowledge” as things that people say they “know” (ie. "I know God exists) then of course science doesn’t provide that sort of “knowledge.”

And as for science “begging the question,” this is clearly false, but it is a trope seized upon by religious people. Your use of the pejorative “scientism” sets you up for describing it in such a way that makes it seem irrational. Your first premise is a straw man and it just gets worse from there.

 

[SPBlitz]

But if you class “knowledge” as things that people say they “know” (ie. "I know God exists) then of course science doesn’t provide that sort of “knowledge.”

No, I mean knowledge as in grounds for belief. Or evidence for belief, whatever you want to call it.

Well, I never said, “this is the only way to gain knowledge.”

I said it’s the only approach that has ever provided independent , verifiable truths about our world.

What I mean is that those that subscribe to scientism argue that unless your evidence comes from the scientific method, then you have no grounds for belief. For example, if I were to provide a philosophical proof for God’s existence, you would balk, since a philosophical proof isn’t the scientific method, and thus can’t be considered grounds for belief. This seems like what you were implying when you said " Well, it would be, given that philosophy doesn’t ever produce actual evidence." My proof is to show that this line of thinking begs the question, and I think it still does.

And as for science “begging the question,” this is clearly false, but it is a trope seized upon by religious people. Your use of the pejorative “scientism” sets you up for describing it in such a way that makes it seem irrational. Your first premise is a straw man and it just gets worse from there.

I never said that science begs the question, I said that scientism begs the question. They are not the same thing. And no, my first premise isn’t a straw man. If you disagree with it, then I don’t see how you can dismiss philosophical arguments as being inadequate for belief in God. However, if you’ll only accept scientific proofs as evidence, then my first premise is not a straw man. So, given the truth of premise one, how does it ‘get worse from there’?

 

[FredBloggs]

No, I mean knowledge as in grounds for belief. Or evidence for belief, whatever you want to call it.

Well, there’s a difference between grounds for belief and evidence supporting a truth claim. There are plenty of grounds for religious belief - it provides succour, it provides community, it documents a particular standard for morality. None of those things is the exclusive domain of religion, of course, but for those who happen to identify closely with them in that context, they provide grounds for belief. They don’t constitute evidence that the truth claims of that religion are true. And at this point, let’s remind ourselves of the title of this thread.

What I mean is that those that subscribe to scientism argue that unless your evidence comes from the scientific method, then you have no grounds for belief. For example, if I were to provide a philosophical proof for God’s existence, you would balk, since a philosophical proof isn’t the scientific method, and thus can’t be considered grounds for belief. This seems like what you were implying when you said " Well, it would be, given that philosophy doesn’t ever produce actual evidence." My proof is to show that this line of thinking begs the question, and I think it still does.

Again, you’re misrepresenting “scientism.” Or at least, using the word in its pejorative sense, and it’s that inaccuracy that is causing a problem.

“Scientism,” as in “the belief that the scientific method is the only known way of identifying objective truths about the world,” does not state that there are no other grounds for belief. It merely acknowledges the fact that without robust evidence to explain a particular phenomenon, the conclusions drawn about it are not credible enough to be established as fact.

And you’re right, a philosophical “proof” for the existence of God is not sufficient, for the simple fact that philosophy is by nature subjective. That doesn’t mean a philosophical proof can’t be considered grounds for belief, but it isn’t enough to demonstrate that the truth claim (the existence of God) is correct.

To take a facile example - once, thunder and lightning were taken as “grounds” to believe that the gods were angry. It was never “evidence,” but it satisfied the needs of the people who were predisposed to believe in gods.

So I can happily concede that, say, Aquinas’ five ways are “grounds” for your belief; they do not even remotely constitute evidence for God’s existence.

While you conflate “grounds” and “evidence,” this conversation will go nowhere.

 

[FredBloggs]

I never said that science begs the question, I said that scientism begs the question. They are not the same thing. And no, my first premise isn’t a straw man. If you disagree with it, then I don’t see how you can dismiss philosophical arguments as being inadequate for belief in God. However, if you’ll only accept scientific proofs as evidence, then my first premise is not a straw man. So, given the truth of premise one, how does it ‘get worse from there’?

They’re not the same thing, no. But your first premise is wrong. Scientism, as defined the way I have correctly defined it above, does not set a rule that there are no “grounds for belief” unless the conclusions are arrived at via the scientific method. I refer to my previous definition for something fairer and more accurate, to save typing it again

So I completely agree that your definition of scientism is begging the question (although in far vaguer terms than the presupposition of God that underpins any philosophical “proof” for his existence). However that is not the true definition, it’s just the weasel-worded definition that theists invoke in the course of levelling a “tu quoque” allegation.

 

[SPBlitz]

“Scientism,” as in “the belief that the scientific method is the only known way of identifying objective truths about the world,” does not state that there are no other grounds for belief. It merely acknowledges the fact that without robust evidence to explain a particular phenomenon, the conclusions drawn about it are not credible enough to be established as fact.

Don’t be obtuse - obviously whenever someone asks for grounds for a belief, the mean ‘good grounds’. But have it your way, I’ll rephrase my argument:

1. All evidence 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 has no evidence, because of Premise 1.
   Textbook begging the question.

Here’s the thing - why should I believe that the scientific method, and only the scientific method, provides evidence for belief? Because it’s the only method that provides physical evidence? But this itself needs defending - why is physical evidence the only evidence that counts? You have done nothing to prove this - you’ve only asserted it.

And I don’t see how this counts as a tu quoque allegation. I’m not saying you’re a hypocrite. I’m saying the statement ‘science is the only method to obtain evidence for belief’ is begging the question. Again, it is.

And you’re right, a philosophical “proof” for the existence of God is not sufficient, for the simple fact that philosophy is by nature subjective.

Philosophy uses logic and reason to reach conclusions - both of which are not subjective, but objective.

Ultimately, your claim that only physical evidence counts as evidence is baseless. Why is that the only evidence that is acceptable? If you say that it’s because nothing non-physical exists (because we have no physical evidence of it), than that’s question begging. The very question we are discussing is whether or not other types of evidence are allowed. You are starting off by saying that only physical evidence is acceptable, and using that to support that only the physical exists - which you only say because we have no physical evidence of something non-physical existing.