The 'no proof' argument against God

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Well even the Catholic Church doesn’t necessarily teach that Adam and eve is a literal story but figurative. If you go based on the timeline of the bible the stories are only several thousand years old, human evolution is several million years old. Where was god before the events of the old testament? That’s what I dont understand. I will do as you suggest and look at the miracles of the saints.

God was where He always is during that time (between man’s evolving and God’s appearance in the OT). What I like to consider happened is that God needed man to become evolved enough to comprehend His messages.

Think of it this way: you do not teach your 2 year old son Einstein’s general relativity because he could not understand it. You need to wait for him to understand before communicating that concept. Likewise, God need man to be sufficiently capable of handling His message.

 

[davidv]

Well even the Catholic Church doesn’t necessarily teach that Adam and eve is a literal story but figurative. If you go based on the timeline of the bible the stories are only several thousand years old, human evolution is several million years old. Where was god before the events of the old testament? That’s what I dont understand. I will do as you suggest and look at the miracles of the saints.

The Church teaches that all Scripture must first be understood literally, that is, as it author intended. Then and only then can one try to understand the spiritual meaning.
My suggestion is that if you think that the OT presents an accurate historical timeline, you did not arrive at the correct literal interpretation. God is eternal, He always is. He has no “before”.

 

[catholictiger]

God is transcendent, “no proof” can exist in reality of God.

you can use observation to argue to him but there is a point in the argument were you have to go from the observable to the unobservable, and because of this there is no proof for the existence of God on the scientific level. Which I think most atheists are looking for. a Scientific experiment which can prove God.

 

[clem456]

God is transcendent, “no proof” can exist in reality of God.

you can use observation to argue to him but there is a point in the argument were you have to go from the observable to the unobservable, and because of this there is no proof for the existence of God on the scientific level. Which I think most atheists are looking for. a Scientific experiment which can prove God.

And in the process of looking for proof, atheism denies maybe the most obvious fact available to reason…that we are created, that we are contingent on something other than ourselves. And it’s not our parents, because most of our parents had sex thousands of times, and for all that trying, were only able to create one unique “I”. This “other” than myself is not observable, as you say^^^. And by it’s nature this “other” is a relationship, right? It is a relationship because this “other” is -not- me. So I am in a relationship with whatever created me. We know from evidence of human realtionships that they are constructed of all sorts of realities that are not proveable; Love, trust, commitment etc… These things change the world in visible concrete ways, to deny these realities exist and how they affect the world is absurd. Atheist ignore all sorts of evidence of these realities, they attempt to fit the world into a small knowable box, when in reality the world is beyond anyone’s comprehension. They attempt to reduce the world to a logical construct when the reality around them testifies to a mysterious relationship beyond proof.

 

[saywhat]

But all of those attributes love and such doesn’t mean god exists. Why do those thins mean there is a creator god, why isn’t it just because that is in our nature as homo sapiens? How can the homo sapiens be around for two hundred thousand years and only about 10 thousand years ago judaism arises? Is that not man made?

 

[davidv]

But all of those attributes love and such doesn’t mean god exists.

Do any of these attributes mean God doesn’t exist?

Why do those thins mean there is a creator god, why isn’t it just because that is in our nature as homo sapiens?

How does our nature explain how that nature came about?

How can the homo sapiens be around for two hundred thousand years and only about 10 thousand years ago judaism arises?

I don’t know. Is there any written testimony available from that age?

Is that not man made?

Not according to scripture. Abraham was visited by God on a number of occasions.

 

[Poseidon]

I may be repeating things, since I haven’t read the whole thread, but I’ll put my two cents in anyway. Essentially, when someone presents the no proof argument, they are asking “since there is no proof that there is a god, why would you believe in one?” It actually is a very good, solid argument. You use it every day unconsciously. You won’t believe me if I tell you that there is a dragon on your roof, or fairies in your backyard, because there is no indication that those claims are true, and in fact all your senses indicate that it is not true. You’d think that if there was a dragon on your roof you’d hear its footsteps. When you go outside you’d see it. But since you neither hear nor see it you don’t believe that it is there, not because it’s been proven not to exist (it could have flown away, or be very small, or invisible) but because there is no reason at all to believe that it does exist. Does that clear it up at all?

 

[clem456]

But all of those attributes love and such doesn’t mean god exists. Why do those thins mean there is a creator god, why isn’t it just because that is in our nature as homo sapiens? How can the homo sapiens be around for two hundred thousand years and only about 10 thousand years ago judaism arises? Is that not man made?

Attitudes or hidden realities don’t prove that God exists. God can’t be proven.
So, these questions we are addressing admit of a mystery, which no one can prove with the senses or reason. It can be experienced, testified to, and proposed to others, but not proven in a scientific sense.

What is that mystery to you? There are different ways it can be handled. Some would say, I can’t see it, can’t prove it scientifically, so it doesn’t exist. But this is a problem, because we reasonably know that things exist which can’t be touched, seen, proven. Love is one of those. So, if you deny that unproven things exist, you build a very small world which excludes things that are evident, although not proven, and are life-changing. We can say that everything is subject to our senses and reason, but that’s never been a fulfilling answer for us, and in fact leads to very bad consequences when other people do not fit into the world we build.

Others do not care about the mystery. It is not an issue.

Others see God in that mystery, and set out to discover. As you say man has been around for 200,000 years, and that whole time has been looking for something, in stories around campfires, pagan temples, and religious ceremonies of all kinds. It’s almost as if we are hard-wired to look for that which we can’t understand, but instinctively know is there. Even though Judaism didn’t come into being immediately, we have been looking for God a long time. And in fact Scripture tells us that God is present in the human story from the very beginning, even though historically speaking, in the 10,000 years framework, that’s a non starter. So, the discovery is slow and painstaking.

Faith is not certainty. Faith admits mystery. Don’t expect to set out on a journey of faith and find all the answers, more questions will come. But it is very reasonable to to admit there may be a God, and to look. And I would suggest you will find more fulfillment pursuing God than in building a world which you can prove.

 

[clem456]

I may be repeating things, since I haven’t read the whole thread, but I’ll put my two cents in anyway. Essentially, when someone presents the no proof argument, they are asking “since there is no proof that there is a god, why would you believe in one?” It actually is a very good, solid argument. You use it every day unconsciously. You won’t believe me if I tell you that there is a dragon on your roof, or fairies in your backyard, because there is no indication that those claims are true, and in fact all your senses indicate that it is not true. You’d think that if there was a dragon on your roof you’d hear its footsteps. When you go outside you’d see it. But since you neither hear nor see it you don’t believe that it is there, not because it’s been proven not to exist (it could have flown away, or be very small, or invisible) but because there is no reason at all to believe that it does exist. Does that clear it up at all?

You can try and reduce everything to senses and reason, but there are still mysteries which can’t be explained. This mystery testifies to something “other” than us. If the world was all “us”, our own reason and senses, there would be nothing unexplained. And we know that is not true.

What keeps people married to one another for 60 years, when at times it would be easy to find a more attractive or healthier partner.? Why do people voluntarily switch places with condemned people in death camps? It makes no rational sense. It is in fact foolish behavior by the world’s definition. These are things that change the world and yet can’t be seen or proven. They are the stuff of relationships, not logical proofs.

 

[Qoeleth]

I get this from atheists a lot. " there is no proof of God, therefore he doesn’t exist " By the very nature of God, as monotheists understand him, he exists outside of time or space. Most often in life, things are known by their effect. Absolute rroof doesn’t really even exist for anything, fundamentally. All one can do is take available evidence, which is never all possible evidence, and make a reasonable conjecture based on that evidence. Now as far as no ‘evidence’ for God, what they are really saying is that “we are unwilling to accept the conclusion that God exists and therefore the evidence leading to that conclusion doesn’t exist.” Most aren’t aware of this. Due to external impediments, unrelated to the matter of proof, evidence, or veracity, or the validity of any possible argument, they are unable or unwilling to accept the conclusion. I will allow that no sufficient evidence or proof exists, for them at least. But this is due to the aforementioned impediments, not to the validity of evidence, proof or arguments presented to them.
An absurd, but logically consistent outcome of the no proof argument is that gravity, for instance, did not exist prior to the advent of modern humans. Non human animals lack the mental capacity to grasp the concept of gravity. Thus only the effect of gravity existed, but not actual gravity.
For the record, I don’t believe this about gravity. I was simply pointing out where the no proof argument would lead, if held as such.
Obviously, both gravity, and the effect thereof, existed before humans did. This is one case among many that contradicts the 'proof or evidence is necessary for something to exist ’ argument. They may refuse to believe or accept God and therefore cannot accept the evidence that is available, or valid arguments for God’s existence but that is an impediment based objection, and not one based on logic or available evidence. Of course, many are not consciously aware of the impediment. More will view what is an impediment as irrelevent. Instead, they simply discount the evidence, attack the argument, even illogically, or simply engage in ad hominem attempts to discredit the argument.

Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection says there is greater credit in Faith when it is contrary to evidence. Personally, if I had concrete proof ‘God’ existed, I would no longer believe He was God, just a superior Being.

Gravity is only a theoretical hypothesis. It does not really ‘exist’ as such.

 

[JDaniel]

Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection says there is greater credit in Faith when it is contrary to evidence. Personally, if I had concrete proof ‘God’ existed, I would no longer believe He was God, just a superior Being.

Qoeleth:

Interesting! Why do you think this?

Gravity is only a theoretical hypothesis. It does not really ‘exist’ as such.

I hope you’re tied down!

(By the way, we can’t see wind either? Oh, and we can’t see two magnets attract or repel one another either. IOW, I wonder if what we sense should be the real criterion for the Real?)

God bless,
jd

 

[Poseidon]

You can try and reduce everything to senses and reason, but there are still mysteries which can’t be explained. This mystery testifies to something “other” than us. If the world was all “us”, our own reason and senses, there would be nothing unexplained. And we know that is not true.

What keeps people married to one another for 60 years, when at times it would be easy to find a more attractive or healthier partner.? Why do people voluntarily switch places with condemned people in death camps? It makes no rational sense. It is in fact foolish behavior by the world’s definition. These are things that change the world and yet can’t be seen or proven. They are the stuff of relationships, not logical proofs.

Of course there will always be unexplained things. Human knowledge about the universe is far from complete, and probably never will be complete. You are advocating a “God of the gaps” view, but in that view God gets smaller and smaller as our knowledge increases. It’s not a good view to hold, because eventually there will be no more gaps for God to live in, and then where will we be?

 

[Qoeleth]

Qoeleth:

Interesting! Why do you think this?

I hope you’re tied down!

(By the way, we can’t see wind either? Oh, and we can’t see two magnets attract or repel one another either. IOW, I wonder if what we sense should be the real criterion for the Real?)

God bless,
jd

Well, if God had could be tangibly seen or perceived, He would really not be infinite or transcendental- basically He would just be a more powerful Being. Does the ant worship the tiger? No, because the tiger is just a more powerful version of the ant. If ‘God’ was the same type of being as me, just better, why should I worship Him? He would be just a guy like me, only more intelligent, stronger, more charitable and bigger.

 

[JDaniel]

Of course there will always be unexplained things. Human knowledge about the universe is far from complete, and probably never will be complete. You are advocating a “God of the gaps” view, but in that view God gets smaller and smaller as our knowledge increases. It’s not a good view to hold, because eventually there will be no more gaps for God to live in, and then where will we be?

Poseidon:

God is in all the “gaps.” He is the Infinite Nothingness (the Divine Spirit) that permeates not only every single atom that exists, but also, all of discrete space and all of continuous space. So, in a much more real (physical) manner, God is the gaps. Remember, without God, there is no mass, no weight, no magnitude, no fiction of Reality.

God bless,
jd

 

[saywhat]

the infinite nothingness? these are just words, nonsensical words. That means what exactly? infinite nothingness, I can’t believe this is even being used to describe a supposed omnipresent god. I am not trying to be disrespectful to your arguments here, but you have to see how those words mean nothing, in fact they mean that there is nothing, no god.

 

[saywhat]

And in the process of looking for proof, atheism denies maybe the most obvious fact available to reason…that we are created, that we are contingent on something other than ourselves. And it’s not our parents, because most of our parents had sex thousands of times, and for all that trying, were only able to create one unique “I”. This “other” than myself is not observable, as you say^^^. And by it’s nature this “other” is a relationship, right? It is a relationship because this “other” is -not- me. So I am in a relationship with whatever created me. We know from evidence of human realtionships that they are constructed of all sorts of realities that are not proveable; Love, trust, commitment etc… These things change the world in visible concrete ways, to deny these realities exist and how they affect the world is absurd. Atheist ignore all sorts of evidence of these realities, they attempt to fit the world into a small knowable box, when in reality the world is beyond anyone’s comprehension. They attempt to reduce the world to a logical construct when the reality around them testifies to a mysterious relationship beyond proof.

I am slightly confused by what you are saying as far as our parents having sex and us being born. That is a natural process of life, other mammals do it. If you are referring to your consciousness, I get that. But for all of those times “trying” how many consciousnesses weren’t created. If they decided to have sex the day after they had originally planned, you would have never existed and some other human being would have taken your place. You are here because they had sex, but “that” is only contingent on their decision to do it one day and not the other. You are here because of that reason. Your brain is responsible for your conscious thought, when you are brain damaged, it affects your conscious thought. You are only aware of yourself when your brain is working properly, you aren’t aware of the “I” when it isn’t. What does that mean. What does it mean when a brain damaged or mentally handicapped child cannot have any kind of relationship with their parents, it is not reciprocated on the child’s end because it cannot be. The relationship is one sided. You can love your child but the relationship you talk about is contingent on two self aware beings, which needs a functioning brain. A part of our human evolution, which has grown in size for millions of years.
Our feelings of love, compassion, charity, has theories on both ends, for the atheist, they can possibly be vestiges from our past. Chimps take care of each other, they groom each other. The maternal instinct of chimps is remarkable. THe mothers carry around their dead babies and continue to groom them, until they let go of them. They are very protective of their young. There is commitment there, love, trust. These are not isolated to our species. If you cannot truly understand what love is, then you cannot say that chimps do not experience it. There is a relationship there, how is that not the same as our relationship, except that our brains are more evolved than theirs?

 

[JDaniel]

the infinite nothingness? these are just words, nonsensical words. That means what exactly? infinite nothingness, I can’t believe this is even being used to describe a supposed omnipresent god. I am not trying to be disrespectful to your arguments here, but you have to see how those words mean nothing, in fact they mean that there is nothing, no god.

Hello, Saywhat. Welcome to CAF.

Yes, that’s what I said. Doesn’t fit with anything you’ve heard before, I know. But, let’s wander through the scenario. 1) Matter consists of atoms, agreed? 2) Atoms consist mostly of space, agreed? Why? Well, to begin with, they have a nucleus and an electron shell. The electron shell - which can contain one or many electrons - is, on average, 50 thousand times larger than the nucleus. That’s nothingness that is 50,000 times larger than that atom’s nucleus. 3) The electron is a “point particle.” A point particle is dimensionless. (So far, we have a whole lot of “nothing.”) 4) The nucleus consists of neutrons and protons, which consist of quarks, fermions, and bosons. All of these things are dimensionless particles, too. So, the atom consists of Nothing, for all intents and purposes. Make sense?

Yet, matter has “mass.” Yet, matter seems to be mobile. Yet, matter seems to be the container of life.

Now, God is Infinite. Infinite means that God is everywhere, everywhat, everyhow, and every when. I believe God most assuredly exists. I believe that Infinite Nothingness is what God can be called, or referred to, without disparagement of any kind whatsoever. Another poster showed me that there are two orders of existence: the implicate order, the order that God exists in and creates in, and the explicate order, the order, or realm, that we sense and science regards. Implicate means “enfold,” while explicate means, “unfold.” The idea is from David Bohm, author and physicist.

These ideas, concepts and theory do not conflict with religion, and, in fact answer many, if not all, of the questions humans have had since time immemorial about things related to God and religion. For example, how is it possible that the Eucharist contains the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ? This becomes clear when we understand the physics behind the “how.”

Use the Search feature to locate a thread called, “Space?” and give it a read, i.e., a full read.

I appreciate your respect and your inquiry.

God bless,
jd

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You can try and reduce everything to senses and reason, but there are still mysteries which can’t be explained. This mystery testifies to something “other” than us. If the world was all “us”, our own reason and senses, there would be nothing unexplained. And we know that is not true.

That is a God of the gaps type argument. Essentially you are saying that so long as there exist things we can’t explain, those things constitute evidence for God. The problem is that as science allows us to learn and understand more, the actions of God are relegated to an ever shrinking set of phenomena. A few centuries ago, we thought God must be the one moving the planets around, but we no longer need to make such an appeal because we now understand gravity well enough. We used to think that God was responsible for disease and recovery, but we have progressed beyond such a primitive understanding. We are discovering natural explanations for things like our intelligence, the origins of life, and nature of the universe. How small must the set of unexplained phenomenon become before we reject the God hypothesis altogether?

 

[JDaniel]

That is a God of the gaps type argument. Essentially you are saying that so long as there exist things we can’t explain, those things constitute evidence for God. The problem is that as science allows us to learn and understand more, the actions of God are relegated to an ever shrinking set of phenomena. A few centuries ago, we thought God must be the one moving the planets around, but we no longer need to make such an appeal because we now understand gravity well enough. We used to think that God was responsible for disease and recovery, but we have progressed beyond such a primitive understanding. We are discovering natural explanations for things like our intelligence, the origins of life, and nature of the universe. How small must the set of unexplained phenomenon become before we reject the God hypothesis altogether?

TTC:

Same tired, old argument, huh?

Why not let your eyes and your mind open up and see?

God bless,
jd

 

[davidv]

I am slightly confused by what you are saying as far as our parents having sex and us being born. That is a natural process of life, other mammals do it. If you are referring to your consciousness, I get that. But for all of those times “trying” how many consciousnesses weren’t created. If they decided to have sex the day after they had originally planned, you would have never existed and some other human being would have taken your place. You are here because they had sex, but “that” is only contingent on their decision to do it one day and not the other. You are here because of that reason. Your brain is responsible for your conscious thought, when you are brain damaged, it affects your conscious thought. You are only aware of yourself when your brain is working properly, you aren’t aware of the “I” when it isn’t. What does that mean. What does it mean when a brain damaged or mentally handicapped child cannot have any kind of relationship with their parents, it is not reciprocated on the child’s end because it cannot be. The relationship is one sided. You can love your child but the relationship you talk about is contingent on two self aware beings, which needs a functioning brain. A part of our human evolution, which has grown in size for millions of years.
Our feelings of love, compassion, charity, has theories on both ends, for the atheist, they can possibly be vestiges from our past. Chimps take care of each other, they groom each other. The maternal instinct of chimps is remarkable. THe mothers carry around their dead babies and continue to groom them, until they let go of them. They are very protective of their young. There is commitment there, love, trust. These are not isolated to our species. If you cannot truly understand what love is, then you cannot say that chimps do not experience it. There is a relationship there, how is that not the same as our relationship, except that our brains are more evolved than theirs?

Why don’t you believe, as the Church teaches, that humans are fundamently different from other mammals? The fundamental difference being that humans are made in the image and likeness of God. Two specific attributes of this are, free will and an immortal soul.