The 'no proof' argument against God

[saywhat]

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.

I did believe that, and I honestly wish I could believe in it. I used to think I knew so much, the more I live, the more I learn, the less I realize I know. Things just don’t add up. I ignored a lot, and deemed so much insignificant because I was so certain of what I believed. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would have been raised Muslim. You would have the same zest and conviction for your beliefs in Islam as you do with Catholicism. How do you truly know, when everyone is claiming the same experience with contradictory beliefs?

Also, I am not here to be contrary, I am trying to seek out truth, and I will ask every question I can to get there. I am not here to offend anybody, I do respect people and my personal mission, is to leave no stone un-turned.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

TTC:

Same tired, old argument, huh?

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

God bless,
jd

That is the problem with the God of the gaps argument, it ends all inquiry. When a religion realizes that some proclamation it has made is at risk of being found untrue, you get an anti-intellectual backlash and frequent willful ignorance. A person who has decided that God is responsible for earthquakes will not make any useful contributions to seismology. We see this effect around us right now, where people vehemently deny evolution and attempt to promulgate young earth creationism.

So indeed, I could “let my eyes open up” and believe that God is responsible for whatever it is I don’t understand. That, however, is the intellectually lazy option; it prematurely precludes any attempts to explore and understand that unknown.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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?

The Old Testament is a story of the Jewish people’s experience of God through thier history. This doesn’t mean that the world began with the Jewish religion.

There are many arguments to show that God exists philosophically, especially by design. There is no way this world/universe could have come into existence without an intelligent designer.

The following passage is from Peter Kreeft’s website. He is a philosophy professor and a Catholic and his website will answer a lot of your questions.

from: peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

"There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then? "

 

[davidv]

I did believe that, and I honestly wish I could believe in it. I used to think I knew so much, the more I live, the more I learn, the less I realize I know. Things just don’t add up. I ignored a lot, and deemed so much insignificant because I was so certain of what I believed. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would have been raised Muslim. You would have the same zest and conviction for your beliefs in Islam as you do with Catholicism. How do you truly know, when everyone is claiming the same experience with contradictory beliefs?

Also, I am not here to be contrary, I am trying to seek out truth, and I will ask every question I can to get there. I am not here to offend anybody, I do respect people and my personal mission, is to leave no stone un-turned.

Jesus said he was the Truth. Will you believe him?

 

[JDaniel]

I did believe that, and I honestly wish I could believe in it. I used to think I knew so much, the more I live, the more I learn, the less I realize I know. Things just don’t add up. I ignored a lot, and deemed so much insignificant because I was so certain of what I believed. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would have been raised Muslim. You would have the same zest and conviction for your beliefs in Islam as you do with Catholicism. How do you truly know, when everyone is claiming the same experience with contradictory beliefs?

Also, I am not here to be contrary, I am trying to seek out truth, and I will ask every question I can to get there. I am not here to offend anybody, I do respect people and my personal mission, is to leave no stone un-turned.

Saywhat:

Schooled intelligence, and right reason. No matter who you are, deep down inside, you know. It’s far too easy to become habituated: to run around saying that you believe in something precisely because you fear having your throat slashed. You know, don’t you really?

Now, besides your distaste for confusion, what doesn’t “add up” in your opinion?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That is the problem with the God of the gaps argument, it ends all inquiry. When a religion realizes that some proclamation it has made is at risk of being found untrue, you get an anti-intellectual backlash and frequent willful ignorance.

TTC:

I admit that this is true - to some extent. Not everyone who is religious does that, although I’m sure that I have.

A person who has decided that God is responsible for earthquakes will not make any useful contributions to seismology.

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.

We see this effect around us right now, where people vehemently deny evolution and attempt to promulgate young earth creationism.

Forgive them. Some have schooled intelligence and right-reason, and some don’t. I know some things, but, I do not, and will never know everything.

So indeed, I could “let my eyes open up” and believe that God is responsible for whatever it is I don’t understand. That, however, is the intellectually lazy option; it prematurely precludes any attempts to explore and understand that unknown.

Until. Until you get to the point when you ask, “Neat…Now that I know this stuff, how has it really altered my life?” “Is that all there is?” That’s when we begin looking deeper. That’s when what we learn becomes much more significant to us.

God bless,
jd

 

[saywhat]

The Old Testament is a story of the Jewish people’s experience of God through thier history. This doesn’t mean that the world began with the Jewish religion.

There are many arguments to show that God exists philosophically, especially by design. There is no way this world/universe could have come into existence without an intelligent designer.

The following passage is from Peter Kreeft’s website. He is a philosophy professor and a Catholic and his website will answer a lot of your questions.

from: peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

"There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then? "

I went on the website and read Peter Kreefts article. He didn’t mention other fields of science besides astrophysics, like biologists, chemists, anthropologists, etc. I assure you that most of those fields of science which are more involved in the exploration of the natural world do not accept a divine designer, because their research doesn’t show that. Peter Kreeft mentions the Causality argument at the end,but this is disproved by Infinite Regress, you cannot say that the world needs something set it into motion, because you can use the same argument for god, who set him into motion, and it infinitely regresses from there.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I went on the website and read Peter Kreefts article. He didn’t mention other fields of science besides astrophysics, like biologists, chemists, anthropologists, etc. I assure you that most of those fields of science which are more involved in the exploration of the natural world do not accept a divine designer, because their research doesn’t show that. Peter Kreeft mentions the Causality argument at the end,but this is disproved by Infinite Regress, you cannot say that the world needs something set it into motion, because you can use the same argument for god, who set him into motion, and it infinitely regresses from there.

No you have to have a first cause.

Also there are many other articles he wrote and one of them is about the probability of any of this world actually occuring by chance. Basically it would be impossible for this universe and this world and human life to occur by chance.

“For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found “S.O.S.” written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message.Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer? There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that “S.O.S.” could be written in the sand by the wind. But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It’s called God.”

From peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

There are many many arguments for God. Another one is that all cultures have had something called “God”. We are “hard-wired” to believe in God.

You sound like someone who his so hard-hearted and stiff- necked that you refuse to believe in God, although the evidence is all around you, as were many of the Old Testament people!!

 

[clem456]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[saywhat]

Jesus said he was the Truth. Will you believe him?

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. 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.
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? The Bible is so contradictory. 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?

 

[saywhat]

No you have to have a first cause.

Also there are many other articles he wrote and one of them is about the probability of any of this world actually occuring by chance. Basically it would be impossible for this universe and this world and human life to occur by chance.

“For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found “S.O.S.” written in the sand on the beach. You would not think the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message.Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer? There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that “S.O.S.” could be written in the sand by the wind. But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It’s called God.”

From peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm

There are many many arguments for God. Another one is that all cultures have had something called “God”. We are “hard-wired” to believe in God.

You sound like someone who his so hard-hearted and stiff- necked that you refuse to believe in God, although the evidence is all around you, as were many of the Old Testament people!!

Ok, well I will not resort to ad hominem attacks as you seem to do.The First Cause argument is philosophically flawed, as any philosopher. I studied philosophy at a Catholic institution. Ask.

 

[JDaniel]

I went on the website and read Peter Kreefts article. He didn’t mention other fields of science besides astrophysics, like biologists, chemists, anthropologists, etc. I assure you that most of those fields of science which are more involved in the exploration of the natural world do not accept a divine designer, because their research doesn’t show that. Peter Kreeft mentions the Causality argument at the end,but this is disproved by Infinite Regress, you cannot say that the world needs something set it into motion, because you can use the same argument for god, who set him into motion, and it infinitely regresses from there.

Saywhat:

“Infinite regress?” Say what? Now, you know you cannot create an infinite out of a gaggle, oops!, I mean aggregate, of finites. If you think that you can, you’ve misplaced some mathematics somewhere along the line. The problem is, since there is no such thing as an ‘infinite regress’, then we are left with an open end that is not only unintelligible, but actually defies logic and physics.

A so-called infinite regress cannot be a regress-in-infinite-potency either. Why? Because it has already completely occurred! The entire succession has already taken place, therefore, a beginning motion must have occurred and it had to itself be un-moved by anything prior. There’s no other reasonable conclusion. To not conclude it this way is to be, well, shall we say, unreasonable? (At the very least.) The consensus of modern cosmology is that it occurred about 17 billion years ago. But, since you and I were not there, at the time, insane propositions can be postulated. You must disentangle yourself from the insane.

God bless,
jd

 

[saywhat]

Saywhat:

“Infinite regress?” Say what? Now, you know you cannot create an infinite out of a gaggle, oops!, I mean aggregate, of finites. If you think that you can, you’ve misplaced some mathematics somewhere along the line. The problem is, since there is no such thing as an ‘infinite regress’, then we are left with an open end that is not only unintelligible, but actually defies logic and physics.

A so-called infinite regress cannot be a regress-in-infinite-potency either. Why? Because it has already completely occurred! The entire succession has already taken place, therefore, a beginning motion must have occurred and it had to itself be un-moved by anything prior. There’s no other reasonable conclusion. To not conclude it this way is to be, well, shall we say, unreasonable? (At the very least.) The consensus of modern cosmology is that it occurred about 17 billion years ago. But, since you and I were not there, at the time, insane propositions can be postulated. You must disentangle yourself from the insane.

God bless,
jd

the argument used loops back on itself, that there has to be a first mover, but how can there be, what brought him into being? He has no beginning? I mean I guess that is where faith has to begin, but I can’t accept that. but what is being described is that there is magic that began the world. Does that make sense to you?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Ok, well I will not resort to ad hominem attacks as you seem to do.The First Cause argument is philosophically flawed, as any philosopher. I studied philosophy at a Catholic institution. Ask.

Why do you think that God did not make the universe out of nothing?

 

[saywhat]

Why do you think that God did not make the universe out of nothing?

My first issue, is the existence of god. I cannot believe he created the earth if I first cannot accept that he even exists. Not saying I dont want him to.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

My first issue, is the existence of god. I cannot believe he created the earth if I first cannot accept that he even exists. Not saying I dont want him to.

Okay, why don’t you believe in First Cause?

 

[JDaniel]

the argument used loops back on itself, that there has to be a first mover, but how can there be, what brought him into being? He has no beginning? I mean I guess that is where faith has to begin, but I can’t accept that. but what is being described is that there is magic that began the world. Does that make sense to you?

Saywhat:

The only possible answer is that It has always existed through itself. The “loop-back” is a fiction. It is a phantasm of our own making, a mirage.

Yes, I guess that it is a sort of magic. A better magic than any of David Copperfield’s, by any stretch. But, chemistry, logic, mathematics, and physics have brought us as far as we can go to date. These formal sciences were provided to us - by the Maker (in my opinion) - in order to weed it out as best we can. I don’t think we’ll ever weed it out completely, but, schooled intelligence and right-reason will provide us with at least mostly perfected truth.

Now, I’m not trying to convert you. I have no such power. If you (ever) convert, it will be because you wish it so. All I can do is provide that which I believe to be more than a modicum of true.

God bless,
jd

 

[saywhat]

Okay, why don’t you believe in First Cause?

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, scientists get closer and closer to that all of the time, maybe they wont ever find out. I would believe he was the first cause if there was any evidence that he even existed at all. I could say a fairy created the earth adn was the first cause, and no one could say otherwise, because you cannot prove whether that is true or not. I think there is scientific explanation to the evolution of the universe, just as there are signs of it all over our planet, it follows suit with what our whole world tells us.
Maybe there was just space and particles always and eventually something developed from the collision of those particles, elements, what have you. What cause those to begin? I dont know, but saying god is the first cause, calls into question, how is he even possibly in existence without anything causing him. He sounds like a wizard, something magical, something that our world doesn’t point to. If it does, I want to know, I am not close minded, I just don’t want to believe because I want to believe.

 

[JDaniel]

Ok, well I will not resort to ad hominem attacks as you seem to do.The First Cause argument is philosophically flawed, as any philosopher. I studied philosophy at a Catholic institution. Ask.

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

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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, scientists get closer and closer to that all of the time, maybe they wont ever find out. I would believe he was the first cause if there was any evidence that he even existed at all. I could say a fairy created the earth adn was the first cause, and no one could say otherwise, because you cannot prove whether that is true or not. I think there is scientific explanation to the evolution of the universe, just as there are signs of it all over our planet, it follows suit with what our whole world tells us.
Maybe there was just space and particles always and eventually something developed from the collision of those particles, elements, what have you. What cause those to begin? I dont know, but saying god is the first cause, calls into question, how is he even possibly in existence without anything causing him. He sounds like a wizard, something magical, something that our world doesn’t point to. If it does, I want to know, I am not close minded, I just don’t want to believe because I want to believe.

I’m not asking you to understand God. Wow that would be quite a feat! I am asking you why you don’t believe in a first cause. I thought you said you studied philosophy in Catholic school. Surely you are aquainted with Thomas Aquinas?