The 'no proof' argument against God

[JDaniel]

I think it is compelling, but to just say that god is the first cause, doesn’t really answer how the universe began, it simply puts an end to inquiry. How did everything begin,

Saywhat:

Do a search in these fora for the thread entitled, “Space?” That’s it, merely, “Space?” Take two or three nights and read it through, particularly the posts presented by Yppop. Most of the rest are, for the moment, irrelevant. Get a pad and a pencil and write down the words, and their referents, that are used. Ask any questions you wish - even in that thread. Usually, Yppop is listening, and so am I.

The important thing to remember is that he refers to God as “Infinite Nothingness” (which I have adopted). This is not any kind of disparagement. It is the physical outcome of precisely what matter, energy and space are, and how they can be dispersed in God’s Infinite Substance. It is a way to explain the “How?” If there’s anything you disagree with, point it out. It’s complicated, but don’t worry too much about that. I am trying to work it out into my posts in these fora, as you will no doubt notice.

God bless,
jd

 

[davidv]

I used to, not going to lie, but I am unconvinced by who he was. I believe he was a real individual, but he isn’t the only individual who claimed what he claimed.

Really? Who? Where they able to back up their claim by rising from the dead?

The story of the virgin birth was an already established cult in Rome, it was one of the first cults to fully throw their weight behind the christian faith, when it came to rome. The virgin and child iconography was copied from the Cult of Isis. History builds on itself, it borrows from the past and changes, morphs over time.
It isnt special it just makes historical sense.

How does any of this make Jesus anything other than what he claimed?

Why didn’t the Chinese know of Christ for all of those years, or the native americans, did god only care about certain regions of the world?

I don’t know. You’ll have to ask God. Why did he choose to reveal himself to the Israelites and not some other nation?

The Bible is so contradictory.

This only so if one ignors the guidance of the Church in reading it.

So filled with stories that we would claim gods victory over, but when you look at what the story is actually saying, its horrific. Like the story of Jericho, god ordered the israelites to take over a city that wasn’t theirs and destroy everything in it (including the men, women and children). Is this love?

Depends on how you define love. Is your definition of love the correct one in this context?

 

[saywhat]

Saywhat:

May I butt in? (I think I heard you say, “Yes!”) Thus far, you have been a gentleman and a man of your word. There’s no arguing with that. I wish I knew where you studied and under whom, as the First Cause argument is not flawed in any way. I have heard this assertion before. Then, I asked, “How?”

I believe that you believe that it is. May I ask you, “How?” (In what way - as best you can state.)

God bless,
jd

I can understand that there are causal relationships with everything we see, but it does not necessitate a first mover, as in a personal being, these causal relationships are something we can observe and understand their relationship. To claim a being that can’t even be proven to exist is the first mover, jumps from science to faith. I am trying to understand the truth of things outside of faith. The world as we know it, is observable and we have learned so much from it. We have come to understand laws of nature, elements, etc. These we can see their relationship and cause effect relationship with eachother, there is nothing that proves a supernatural being is a first mover. These things developed from the most basic things,. But he is claimed to be everything. why the evolution of anything, if he contained everything.

 

[saywhat]

Saywhat:

Do a search in these fora for the thread entitled, “Space?” That’s it, merely, “Space?” Take two or three nights and read it through, particularly the posts presented by Yppop. Most of the rest are, for the moment, irrelevant. Get a pad and a pencil and write down the words, and their referents, that are used. Ask any questions you wish - even in that thread. Usually, Yppop is listening, and so am I.

The important thing to remember is that he refers to God as “Infinite Nothingness” (which I have adopted). This is not any kind of disparagement. It is the physical outcome of precisely what matter, energy and space are, and how they can be dispersed in God’s Infinite Substance. It is a way to explain the “How?” If there’s anything you disagree with, point it out. It’s complicated, but don’t worry too much about that. I am trying to work it out into my posts in these fora, as you will no doubt notice.

God bless,
jd

Ok thanks, I will.

 

[clem456]

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.

I was trying to demostrate that neither our parents nor ouselves have control over our creation.
We do not create ourselves. We are created by something other than ourselves. Our parents participate in but they do not will our creation. They have very little say in making the unique “I”. Again, they have sex thousands of times but there is only one you. And even if they conceive another child, they cannot replicate you. The have participation, but not ultimate control. This has huge implications for your view of the world. If we believe we control creation (are ourselves gods), history shows all sorts of bad consequences that I won’t mention here.

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.

I would suggest that a handicapped child does have a realtionship with her mother. The question is, do we understand the relationship? You and I can both find examples of how a handicapped child changes parent’s lives. What is that? It seems foolish, but those relationships can be life transforming. The Cross is foolish, it can represent death and failure, disfigurement, shame, suffering, by the standards of pure reason. Yet it trasnforms lives. How can you relate to that? Relationships have a great degree of mystery in them.
And the other thing is, you say it is one sided. But don’t realtionships have a reality of their own, including, but larger than, the two individuals? If we start quantifying contributions to relationships, we run into trouble with valuing human dignity. I as a Christian believer, am infinitely needy compared to the mystery that God is. What do I contribute to that relationship? My consent, my assent, but I am a drop in the ocean if we are going to start measuring.

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?

Interesting you use animals as an analogy. Animals demonstrate emotion, loyalty, hidden realities. They have relationships with one another, and we can probably learn a lot from watching animals cooperate with one another. They do not however have an appreciation for them, don’t pursue their meaning, definitely don’t discuss them on forums as we are. Humans are set apart from the rest of creation.

 

[PoorKnight]

I am being completely sincere in my queries here. I am not here to prove anything, I am honestly weeding through the information out there. I grew up protestant, converted to catholicism, went to a private catholic college and studied philosophy. I am now so unconvinced by the existence of god. I am not closing doors, I just need to know the truth. When the subject that has been broached here about the no-proof for the existence of god, it was mentioned that it doesn’t matter if you can see the effects of god, much like the wind or gravity, etc. I get that. What I can’t wrap my head around are the “effects”, i want to know effects that cannot be also attributed to human nature, natural instances, etc. What are these effects, I am extremely logical, please only serious responses to this question. I am not asking for answers like “i have experienced god, or felt god, or you need to pray” i grew up with that, that would be redundant to my experiences and superfluous information for my question.
Thank you

Saywhat, There is no need to loose your Faith over questions. We all must ask questions to get answers and make decisions.

Let me start with very basic logic: There are two possibilities: God exists and God doesn’t exist. Let’s extend this out:

1. You decide to believe that God exists and it turns out you’re wrong, what is the outcome? You die and never know the difference.
2. You decide that God doesn’t exist and it turns out you’re right. What is the outcome? You die and never know the difference.
3. You decide God exists and it turns out your right. What is the outcome? Possibility of ETERNITY in Paradise.
4. You decide God doesn’t exist and it turns out you’re wrong. What is the outcome? ETERNITY in Hell.

What is the cost / benifit annalysis?

But more direct to your question, since God created all nature and their effects and you don’t want any ‘natural effects’ what you are asking for are Miracles.

Have you tried looking up verified Miracles?

Have you read and studied Fatima where 70,000 people saw the sun fall from the sky? Aethists and Believers alike?

Have you studied the eye witness accounts of healings? Like the child clinically dead for 61 mins - heart monitor attached - while the parents prayed to God, and with intercession from Blessed Arch Bishop Fulton Sheen - before the child returned to life?

How about the Eucharistic Miracles? Where bread turns into flesh, that flesh is take to be studied, blood types are obtained and it is determined by pathologists who did not know the history or source of the flesh that it is cardiac material? Have you tried looking up Eucharistic Miracles?

Have you studied the lives of the Saints who had visions, recieved Sigmata and truely believed?

Let me try to aid your faith a bit.

There is more evidence for the existance of Jesus Christ than for Julius Caesar, Tiberious Caesar, and many other famous people that we all take for granted existed. I’ve read that there are as many as 42 sources for Chirst with in 150 years of his life. I believe I’ve read there are under 10 for Julius…

Christ’s followers claimed to have seen him alive again. They were tortured and killed for it. Why would anyone maintain a lie when it results in torturous death when simply saying “it wasn’t true” would result in the torture stopping and being set free? Despite one persons claims here that neither the Apostles nor Christ ever existed, the evidence for them is quite strong. Have you looked into it, and read about it?

Read this: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm
It is logical evidence for the Bodily Resurection of Our Lord. That is the Greatest Miracle of all time!

Have you researched Irreducible Complexity?

How about the environmental factors needed for life to exist? (i.e. the EXACT Gravitational Constant or life couldn’t exist, the EXACT distance from the Sun, the Exact temp. etc etc.) When you figure the chances of ALL of those factors coming together it is 1 in some-number-with-hundreds-of-zeros-after-it. Literally, some scientists now believe that give all those factors, we MAY be the only life in the Universe.

Have you studied the Big Bang Theory? Then read Genesis chapter one. Then ask yourself if you see a corolation?

Big Bang Theory states that all matter basically came from nothing. Since matter, space and energy are all realated, there was a time when None of them (including time) existed. Per the math, it would take INFINATE POWER to bring matter into existance from nothing.

Philosophy also states that if something had a beginning, it has a purpose.

This is just a ‘fly-by’ and I didn’t have all my sources in front of me.

Please keep being an Emmeth (Truth Seeker) and Do Not give up reading and researching this question.

There is much more evidence… you must find it.

God Bless and ALSO pray… I will pray for you too.

 

[JDaniel]

I can understand that there are causal relationships with everything we see, but it does not necessitate a first mover, as in a personal being,

Saywhat:

Aquinas agreed. He states that "humans call Him, or know Him, by the name “God.”

these causal relationships are something we can observe and understand their relationship.

I’m sure you wouldn’t be surprised at how many do not understand that.

To claim a being that can’t even be proven to exist is the first mover, jumps from science to faith.

OK. How do we prove that there is “air,” or “wind?” Please don’t think me facetious here. How do we prove “mass?” How do we prove what “space” consists of? How do we prove what the “atom” consists of? How do we prove what “life” is? How do we prove how “life” began? With all of our “science,” these are still “theories.” As such, that means that they are brutally so, but, at any time, a newer and supposedly better theory might come about.

I am trying to understand the truth of things outside of faith. The world as we know it, is observable and we have learned so much from it. We have come to understand laws of nature, elements, etc. These we can see their relationship and cause effect relationship with each other, there is nothing that proves a supernatural being is a first mover.

Well, what else could it be? Has anyone ever specified a better answer? Ever? (Maybe, you will!)

These things developed from the most basic things. But he is claimed to be everything. why the evolution of anything, if he contained everything.

A short answer: He is Infinite. We are in Time. Creation is something He wants us to know, and know well. And, we want to know it well also. This may sound so childish, but, can you imagine how we would react to new things popping out old things, all around us at, say, every moment? As you might expect, it would be heart-stoppingly perplexing.

Now, we see time’s sequence, i.e., time’s motion. We see our ever present Now, but notice that it is sliding along correlative with stuff that is apparently moving. We have the experience of a small piece of the Past, and know nothing of the Future. Our Now is extraordinarily, durationally short, perhaps no longer than 1.2 × 10[SUP]−17[/SUP] seconds, or 12-13 attoseconds. Perhaps shorter. An infinite creator’s Now duration must, per definitionem, be infinite, i.e., eternal. Things that would surprise and perhaps terrify us, are not so to Him. I think he thinks we need “evolution.” Evolution, under His design and guidance, is not antithetical to His creation.

God bless,
jd

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Actually I am saying just the opposite of that. There is no evidence, in a scientific sense. I am saying there is something beyond evidence. Mystery. I am saying there are unexplainable things, like where we came from, where we are going when our bodies die, that need to be considered outside the realm of proof. Some people dismiss hidden realities… because they can’t prove them, they don’t exist or don’t have meaning. While noone can give you hard evidence for God, the world does testify to the existence and power of unseen things. It’s hard to avoid. In fact it takes some degree of faith to dismiss hidden realities. Think of the many ways in which unseen things transform the world. It’s all around you.

Since no one can reduce this mystery to proof, I see it through the eyes of a faith relaltionship. Relationships, as we know from our dim experience, are also mysterious and have realities which are not provable. I choose to comtemplate this mystery, and not dismiss it.

Relationships are real. We can measure them, they are observable. We understand them (although perhaps not on a fully rigorous scientific level yet.) Saying relationships exist, therefore God (or some unseen thing) exists is silly. While your experience of a relationship may be subtle and nuanced, what exactly is it that makes them “unseen” or mysterious?

Really, this is a clear demonstration of what happens when people ascribe a phenomenon to the actions of God. You may “contemplate the mystery” but by phrasing it that way, you are setting yourself up to not gain any real understanding. You have presupposed that it is a mystery and therefore not for you to fully understand. You would not attempt to quantify your relationships, study the brain patterns associated with them, or look for an evolutionary explanation for why you form them. Why? Because such investigation has the possibility of dispelling God from yet another corner of our perception of the world. This proposition is too uncomfortable, and already you are thinking “well science won’t let us understand what is really taking place in a relationship.” This is exactly the problem. Instead of trying to define what is meant by really taking place and subsequently trying to test it, the prospect of a meaningful scientific investigation is automatically rejected.

Do you think that science will arrive at certainty regarding the nature of the universe and our existence? Do you think science will be able to "prove " and maybe harness love and use it wisely? That takes an awesome amount of faith.

But the evidence to back up that faith is the history of human learning. We have continued to do and learn things previous generations thought were impossible to do or learn. Do you have any reason to believe we can’t accurately describe the nature of our universe and existence? That we can’t measure love, wisdom, or relationships? Not if we simply ascribe them to God and only consider them from our armchairs. But realistically I see no reason why we cannot, and simply saying “they are complicated and mysterious” only explains why we haven’t figured them out yet.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What use is seismology, except to explain to us how tectonic plates move? I’m not trying to be coy; I really want to know.

Engineering buildings to withstand earthquakes.
Early tsunami detection
So on…

 

[clem456]

Relationships are real. We can measure them, they are observable. We understand them (although perhaps not on a fully rigorous scientific level yet.) Saying relationships exist, therefore God (or some unseen thing) exists is silly. While your experience of a relationship may be subtle and nuanced, what exactly is it that makes them “unseen” or mysterious?

Really, this is a clear demonstration of what happens when people ascribe a phenomenon to the actions of God. You may “contemplate the mystery” but by phrasing it that way, you are setting yourself up to not gain any real understanding. You have presupposed that it is a mystery and therefore not for you to fully understand. You would not attempt to quantify your relationships, study the brain patterns associated with them, or look for an evolutionary explanation for why you form them. Why? Because such investigation has the possibility of dispelling God from yet another corner of our perception of the world. This proposition is too uncomfortable, and already you are thinking “well science won’t let us understand what is really taking place in a relationship.” This is exactly the problem. Instead of trying to define what is meant by really taking place and subsequently trying to test it, the prospect of a meaningful scientific investigation is automatically rejected.

Quite the contrary. We are going to disagree about who understands what. Your proposition admits to what you can see and touch. Mine includes that, plus God.

No I would not want to quantify relationships, ever.
Yes your proposition is uncomfortable. It objectifies human beings. That is not a good thing.

 

[couponfit]

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.

Then why do atheists argue against that which does not exist? There’s no need to disprove that which cannot be proven. My point is that the reason why Atheists try to disprove God, or state there is no proof of God, is because they know already that there is something more but their own personal arrogance and pride keep them from accepting the truth we are all born with.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Then why do atheists argue against that which does not exist? There’s no need to disprove that which cannot be proven.

That’s going to depend on the environment in which one lives. I was listening to some one the other day that was talking about some fighting between some Hindus and Muslims. The person talking about the fighting was of the view that there are no gods, so he would argue against Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, and so on. Yahweh wasn’t a consideration.

It comes down to some one arguing against those propositions with which one disagrees that are asserted in his or her environment.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Then why do atheists argue against that which does not exist? There’s no need to disprove that which cannot be proven. My point is that the reason why Atheists try to disprove God, or state there is no proof of God, is because they know already that there is something more but their own personal arrogance and pride keep them from accepting the truth we are all born with.

The point is this: if God is in all circumstances unmeasurable, then whether or not he exists is unimportant. They frequently use examples such as the flying spaghetti monster to illustrate the point. Lets suppose that there exists such a monster but that we are unable to perceive it in any way, and it does not interact with us. Due to this fact, it is impossible to prove the monster doesn’t exist. However, due to the fact that its existence doesn’t affect us (if it did we would be able to perceive the effect) and that there is no good reason to suppose that it does exist (indeed the proposition is somewhat silly,) its existence is rejected.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

That’s going to depend on the environment in which one lives. I was listening to some one the other day that was talking about some fighting between some Hindus and Muslims. The person talking about the fighting was of the view that there are no gods, so he would argue against Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, and so on. Yahweh wasn’t a consideration.

It comes down to some one arguing against those propositions with which one disagrees that are asserted in his or her environment.

There was an interesting debate a while ago about whether or not religion was a force for good in the world:
bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11843586

If atheists believe that religion is actually detrimental to the world, then they have an interest in convincing people that there is no God, as that strikes at the heart of most religions.

 

[clem456]

There was an interesting debate a while ago about whether or not religion was a force for good in the world:
bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11843586

If atheists believe that religion is actually detrimental to the world, then they have an interest in convincing people that there is no God, as that strikes at the heart of most religions.

Yes the Blair-Hitchens debate, which Atheists will use forevermore because Blair does an awful job defending faith in God and fails to pick apart the obvious holes in Hitchen’s logic. .

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Yes the Blair-Hitchens debate, which Atheists will use forevermore because Blair does an awful job defending faith in God and fails to pick apart the obvious holes in Hitchen’s logic. .

But the debate wasn’t about faith in God. It was about whether or not religion is a force for good.

 

[clem456]

But the debate wasn’t about faith in God. It was about whether or not religion is a force for good.

Ok well I guess you got me on that one?

 

[catholictiger]

But the debate wasn’t about faith in God. It was about whether or not religion is a force for good.

how does religion being a force for good have anything to do with an argument for an existence of God?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

how does religion being a force for good have anything to do with an argument for an existence of God?

I was explaining why an atheist would believe that arguing against the existence of God was a worthwhile pursuit. By casting doubt on the existence of God, they would by proxy call into question most (if not all) major religions. They would want to do this because they may believe those religions are in fact harmful to the world.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I was explaining why an atheist would believe that arguing against the existence of God was a worthwhile pursuit. By casting doubt on the existence of God, they would by proxy call into question most (if not all) major religions. They would want to do this because they may believe those religions are in fact harmful to the world.

Who are atheists to decide what is harmful or not harmful to the world?. If you don’t believe in God, you will put your faith in a human being or the State. When a human or the State gets too much power, horrible things can happen, and that is perfectly obvious throughout history. When you put your faith in God, you are putting your faith in perfection, love and true power.