Two more ways to convince a skeptic that God is real

[Pallas_Athene]

Ah. Indeed, you have never have prayed for faith as an adult. This is a very common scenario with Atheists. Namely that their faith was shattered at a young age and since then, they have never looked at God from an adult point of view. The development of the spiritual (the combination of logic, emotions and memory together) can get stunted.

Oh, I looked, and still looking. The “picture” is much worse through the eyes of an adult. No wonder that the Bible says that we should be like children. Which means, without critical skills, and accepting whatever an “authority” happens to tell us.

You want God to fix things to conform to how YOU think they should be.

Very imprecise. If a being is described as “loving” and “caring” then one expects that being to behave in a certain way. Not just by ME, but every reasonable person. Words are supposed to have MEANINGS.

This thought cannot be held on to at the same time with the thought that God is all knowing and loving.

You bet. One of them must be discarded. And if someone behaves as an evil (or at least as an uncaring) person, then every logical analyzer will discard the adjective “loving”.

What you try to do is called “argument from ignorance”. Just because we don’t know “everything”, we should give the benefit of doubt, and consider God as “loving”, even if there is no evidence of that.

The fundamental problem is that you attempt to use a different “yardstick” for “human goodness” and “God’s goodness”. Goodness is goodness. And that simply does not wash.

There are two solutions (at least that I can think of) to that spiritual dilemma. One is to give up on God completely. The other is to have faith in God and look more deeply into why things are the way they are. There are many wonderful insights into God that can be gleaned by following the second path. And since the first is a dead end, why not take the road less traveled?

The “faith” you speak of is called “blind” faith. It requires one to give up one’s rational thinking. That is NOT an option. If God can be demonstrated in a rational way, everything is fine.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You truly need to grow up.

Reality is tough… and bites you on the behind.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I propose that most skeptics that claim the title of atheist or agnostic are not true skeptics. A real skeptic would be just as skeptical of irreligion as they would be of religion.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I propose that most skeptics that claim the title of atheist or agnostic are not true skeptics. A real skeptic would be just as skeptical of irreligion as they would be of religion.

I agree with you. A skeptic is not an unbeliever. People speak from their beliefs, not from what they do not believe. I do not believe in magical fairies, so I simply don’t think about them. I certainly don’t go around asking people to “prove” their existence to me so I can tell them I don’t believe. Because I don’t believe in them, I simply don’t care about discussing them. People don’t spend time and energy discussing something they honestly don’t believe in.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Buddy, I was a child back then. I did not even know the word “faith”. But children are gullible, they swallow whatever the authorities tell them, so I believed that there is good, loving deity “up there”. So, yes, I tried to pray for a few specific abilities, because I already was aware of starving children, and I wanted to help them. And - as always - nothing happened. That was the first “crack” in the wall of my beliefs. Later those cracks became gaping holes, and finally the whole wall came down.

Not all children are gullible. I wasn’t. I doubted almost everything told to me and investigated for myself. I know many people who were like that as children.

I’ve worked with children in East Africa who have almost nothing of material value, but I can tell you, from your posts, those children, and their parents, seem far, far happier and more content than you do. So maybe God isn’t so unfair after all. I’ve known cancer patients who seem to be happier than you. Maybe you should volunteer at some of the places that take care of the poor, etc. You might find happiness and “proof” there.

 

[inocente]

Ok. So since there is always a time delay between picking up a pebble and this fact registering in my brain… does it follow that I cannot “really” know that the pebble exists, since it could have somehow disintegrated during the time that the nerves propagated the information.

It is nice to be skeptical, but “universal skepticism” does not lead anywhere. And I would gladly wait 8 minutes for God to pay me a visit.

You would not need to believe, you would KNOW. No stage magician can see the future. That was the whole point.

Universal skepticism is a great philosophy, it’s the basis of science. A mustard seed of doubt can move a mountain, or at least stop us being suckered. But you may be talking of cynicism, where nothing new can ever be learned due to a closed mind.

We don’t tell the universe that it must prove the laws of physics to us or else we won’t believe them. We know it won’t tell us. There might be some alternate possible world which would tell us, painting the laws across the sky, but we know this world will not. We have to test the laws we make, we can’t expect the world to serve them up on a plate. You have to test your beliefs for yourself, you’re not in an alternate reality, you’re in the world as it is.

 

[ericc]

As said before, ONLY God can give evidence of his existence. No human person or institution is qualified to speak for God. So here I will present two surefire methods which God could apply (if he wanted to - Insh’ Allah) to convince any skeptic that he exists.

The first one uses omniscience. God gets together with a skeptic (or even better a whole bunch of skeptics) on the night when the numbers of a lottery (for example Powerball) are drawn. The drawing is televised, of course. The skeptics will use all sorts of recording devices, but no communication to the outside. One minute before the numbers are drawn God will tell the winning numbers, and also the names and addresses of the winners (it may happen that there will be no jackpot winner, but there will a few lesser winnings). The “one minute” interval is important. It makes sure that the witnesses are unable to act on the prediction. Since “omniscience” is impossible for anyone but God, this nice little “parlor trick” becomes a PROOF, not just evidence for God’s existence.

The second one uses omnipotence. The same scenario applies, but God will listen to the skeptics who will say which numbers they want to be the winners. God knows if any of them tries to “rig” the game, and tries to call his own set of winning numbers and so he rejects those. When the numbers are agreed upon, God will make sure that those numbers will be drawn, in the correct sequence. Since only God can do that, it is another PROOF for God’s existence.

I can already foresee some objections about some space aliens, or mass hypnosis or something equally inane. There are no space aliens. Recording devices cannot be hypnotized. Some of the recording devices can be placed into bank vaults, under strictly controlled supervision so that no kind of “cheating” can occur.

I am sure there will be some other people who will acclaim (indignantly) that God would not be willing to participate in such “parlor games”. That is not the issue. The problem was to create a surefire experiment which would convince any skeptic that God exists, and also has “omnipotence” and “omniscience” as two of his attributes. (There is no way to prove God’s benevolence, of course).

Have fun with it.

Disclaimer: I created these scenarios to prove that the assumption of Aquinas (For those who believe, no proof is necessary and for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible) is incorrect. It would be very easy (for God) to prove his existence. Too bad that he does not do it.

If God did either of that, he would have compelled you to believe. Your free will to reject Him would have been taken away because you have no choice but to accept he exists.

But God doesn’t do that. He let you have glimpses of Him , indirectly. So that you will need to seek him in order to see him clearly. And if you sincerely seek him, you will find him. But not if you challenge him to appear right in front of you , whether with smoke effects or not or a bucket of fried chicken. That is childish, games you play when you are young. But when you seek him, don’t put your sunglasses of disbelief on in a dark room, less you miss him.

And a bit of humility is good. Issuing challenges to your Creator asking him to prove that he exist to you is not exactly a respectful thing to do. Nor wise.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Not all children are gullible. I wasn’t. I doubted almost everything told to me and investigated for myself. I know many people who were like that as children.

I’ve worked with children in East Africa who have almost nothing of material value, but I can tell you, from your posts, those children, and their parents, seem far, far happier and more content than you do. So maybe God isn’t so unfair after all. I’ve known cancer patients who seem to be happier than you. Maybe you should volunteer at some of the places that take care of the poor, etc. You might find happiness and “proof” there.

 

[Elizium23]

http://i1.wp.com/catholicmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/large.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=686,499

 

[CHRISTINE77]

http://i1.wp.com/catholicmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/large.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=686,499

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Universal skepticism is a great philosophy, it’s the basis of science.

I have no idea what meaning you assign to “universal skepticism”. In philosophy there are two kinds of it: positive universal skepticism and negative universal skepticism.

The positive one denies the concept of “knowledge”. It says that knowledge is impossible, and in this it is like the logical positivism, both are untenable.Since the proposition: “there can be no knowledge” is itself a declaration of “knowledge”, the assertion is self-refuting. I don’t know anyone who would subscribe to this concept.

The negative one is slightly different. It says that humans are fallible beings and as such there can be always a “doubt” about our knowledge. It does not deny knowledge per se, it just says there is always a place for doubt.

When you presented the example that we cannot “know” if the Sun is “still” there, since some unknown force could have removed it 5 minutes ago, and we would be unaware of this fact for 3 more minutes, it looked like that you subscribe to the second variety, which does not outright deny the existence of “knowledge”, but introduces an unavoidable uncertainty factor.

Is this a correct interpretation of what you said? I will wait with the continuation until we can establish a common understanding of what “universal” skepticism means in your vocabulary.

 

[Gorgias]

"Pallas Athene:

So, yes, I tried to pray for a few specific abilities, because I already was aware of starving children, and I wanted to help them. And - as always - nothing happened. That was the first “crack” in the wall of my beliefs.

So, wait… let me make sure I understand you correctly: the basis for your rejection of belief in God is that He didn’t give you super-human powers when you prayed for them as a child? Oh, boy…

To put it in a more ‘adult’ perspective: you put your quarter in the cosmic slot machine, and when it didn’t pay out the way you wanted it to, you decided that the slot machine wasn’t real? Yet again – irrational.

Oh, I looked, and still looking. The “picture” is much worse through the eyes of an adult. No wonder that the Bible says that we should be like children. Which means, without critical skills, and accepting whatever an “authority” happens to tell us.

Thank you for interpreting our Scriptures for us. What would we do without you?

(But really, though: no dice. That’s not what that passage means. )

What you try to do is called “argument from ignorance”. Just because we don’t know “everything”, we should give the benefit of doubt, and consider God as “loving”, even if there is no evidence of that.

No. The argument from ignorance is a different proposition. What was being explained to you is the difficulty (in this case, the impossibility) of proving a negative.

The fundamental problem is that you attempt to use a different “yardstick” for “human goodness” and “God’s goodness”. Goodness is goodness.

In comparing two entities, as their attributes converge, the ‘yardsticks’ for comparing them converge. As their attributes diverge, their ‘yardsticks’ naturally diverge. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being is very different than a human. The ‘yardsticks’, naturally, differ greatly. I think I’ve already referred you to Aquinas on comparing God and man; it seems you haven’t taken me up on the suggestion.

If God can be demonstrated in a rational way, everything is fine.

But, you’re not asking for God to be demonstrated in a rational way – you’re asking for Him to be demonstrated in a strictly empirical way. Big difference.

BTW – your experiment would always fail, because you’re making an irrational leap of logic. You presume that your standard for proof is the same standard of proof of every skeptic. That just doesn’t hold up; any arbitrary skeptic might look at your demonstration and claim you’ve missed some observation, or failed to notice some sleight-of-hand, or are attempting to pull the wool over his eyes.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So, wait… let me make sure I understand you correctly: the basis for your rejection of belief in God is that He didn’t give you super-human powers when you prayed for them as a child? Oh, boy…

You did NOT understand. I explicitly stated that it was the FIRST CRACK in the wall. And for a child, who was told: “knock on the door, and it will be opened”, and “ask and you will receive” and “whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled” it was a very logical and rational conclusion.

Thank you for interpreting our Scriptures for us. What would we do without you?

You are most welcome. Since the church does NOT give an official verse-to-verse interpretation of the scriptures, we are all left to our own devices and we are free to interpret it according to our best ability.

(But really, though: no dice. That’s not what that passage means. )

According to your interpretation… which you never shared with me. But since there is no “official” interpretation, we have a stalemate.

No. The argument from ignorance is a different proposition. What was being explained to you is the difficulty (in this case, the impossibility) of proving a negative.

A universal negative can never be proven.

In comparing two entities, as their attributes converge, the ‘yardsticks’ for comparing them converge. As their attributes diverge, their ‘yardsticks’ naturally diverge. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being is very different than a human. The ‘yardsticks’, naturally, differ greatly. I think I’ve already referred you to Aquinas on comparing God and man; it seems you haven’t taken me up on the suggestion.

Unacceptable. If it is “evil” for us to perform a genocide, then it is equally evil for God to do it. Love is love, no matter who performs it. Murder is murder, regardless of the perpetrator.

But, you’re not asking for God to be demonstrated in a rational way – you’re asking for Him to be demonstrated in a strictly empirical way. Big difference.

Only in your eyes. God is supposed to be able manifest his existence in an empirical way. Just like Doubting Thomas asked for it. And the response: “blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe” is just a cop-out. Missouri’s nickname is the “show me state” and even though I do not live there, I find it rather cool.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You are most welcome. Since the church does NOT give an official verse-to-verse interpretation of the scriptures, we are all left to our own devices and we are free to interpret it according to our best ability.

Actually, the Church DOES. I have one, and they are readily available. It’s called a “Catholic Study Bible.”

 

[inocente]

I have no idea what meaning you assign to “universal skepticism”. In philosophy there are two kinds of it: positive universal skepticism and negative universal skepticism.

The positive one denies the concept of “knowledge”. It says that knowledge is impossible, and in this it is like the logical positivism, both are untenable.Since the proposition: “there can be no knowledge” is itself a declaration of “knowledge”, the assertion is self-refuting. I don’t know anyone who would subscribe to this concept.

The negative one is slightly different. It says that humans are fallible beings and as such there can be always a “doubt” about our knowledge. It does not deny knowledge per se, it just says there is always a place for doubt.

When you presented the example that we cannot “know” if the Sun is “still” there, since some unknown force could have removed it 5 minutes ago, and we would be unaware of this fact for 3 more minutes, it looked like that you subscribe to the second variety, which does not outright deny the existence of “knowledge”, but introduces an unavoidable uncertainty factor.

Is this a correct interpretation of what you said? I will wait with the continuation until we can establish a common understanding of what “universal” skepticism means in your vocabulary.

There’s no need for anyone to adhere to such artificial doctrines, and I doubt many do. We don’t need to contemplate our navels worrying about whether we can know what we know what we might know. My point is much more basic.

Kant makes a simple division of knowledge between that which depends on the senses, and that which is independent of the senses. The first (“a posteriori”) depends on inductive reasoning, such as in natural science, the second (“a priori”) on deduction, as in math.

Inductive reasoning always has a level of uncertainty since in relies on weight of evidence.

Deduction can provide absolute proof, but deduction is reasoning from propositions (axioms), which don’t depend on concrete observations. So all attempts to absolutely prove or disprove God are a complete waste of time, since they must start with made-up propositions.

The only way to know God is through induction, and induction always has a level of uncertainty. You want an impossible level of certainty, far more than the average person. That’s the totality of what I’m saying, no navel gazing required, honest guv.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Actually, the Church DOES. I have one, and they are readily available. It’s called a “Catholic Study Bible.”

Thank you. I am surprised, because you are the first one who makes that claim. Everyone else offered a “cop-out”, usually saying that the church cares about salvation, and not with the verse-to-verse analysis or the scriptures. I have two questions: Is this book an “officially accepted” compilation having the imprimatur of the church? And can I get to it online?

As you know there is the “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” (skepticsannotatedbible.com/) which deals with the problems and questions arising from the bible.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You did NOT understand. I explicitly stated that it was the FIRST CRACK in the wall. And for a child, who was told: “knock on the door, and it will be opened”, and “ask and you will receive” and “whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled” it was a very logical and rational conclusion.

May I suggest that you have been praying the wrong way? Instead of saying, “God, I demand that you fix the starvation problem immediately!” try “Lord, how could I help the starving people in the world?” and that may lead you to find ways that you can actually be a force of good for this problem. And don’t tell me that you think this world should be a perfect Eden. Without challenges, no man could show his honor, his care, his strength in the face of adversity.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There’s no need for anyone to adhere to such artificial doctrines, and I doubt many do. We don’t need to contemplate our navels worrying about whether we can know what we know what we might know. My point is much more basic.

I am sure, not many do. But we are not just “anybodies”. And we are on a philosophy forum, so precise definitions (“artificial doctrines”) are a must.

Kant makes a simple division of knowledge between that which depends on the senses, and that which is independent of the senses. The first (“a posteriori”) depends on inductive reasoning, such as in natural science, the second (“a priori”) on deduction, as in math.

Yes. Agreed (at least) 100 percent.

Inductive reasoning always has a level of uncertainty since in relies on weight of evidence.

The question is the “level of uncertainty”. Science operates on reasonable doubt. No scientist will say that the Sun might have disappeared five minutes ago, therefore we can doubt that the Sun is “still there”? It is true that any miniscule facet of “knowledge” is subject to re-evaluation is there is new evidence that warrants it. “Knowledge” does not equal absolute, 100%, Cartesian certainty.

Deduction can provide absolute proof, but deduction is reasoning from propositions (axioms), which don’t depend on concrete observations. So all attempts to absolutely prove or disprove God are a complete waste of time, since they must start with made-up propositions.

Yes.

The only way to know God is through induction, and induction always has a level of uncertainty. You want an impossible level of certainty, far more than the average person. That’s the totality of what I’m saying, no navel gazing required, honest guv.

It is very true that I am more skeptical than the average person, since the “average” person has a very low level of skepticism, if at all. But you said that you are even more skeptical than I am. The question is “do you think that the level of certainty I need is unreasonable”?

What level of certainty one needs before accepting a claim is highly personal. Many people fall prey to scam artists, because they accept the “word” of an unknown person. I do not have two measuring sticks for different claims. Religious and non-religious claims get the same “treatment”. If someone offers the “Brooklyn Bridge” for sale, I need certain evidence that he actually has the title deed. The same applies to religious claims, something that I can check (if I want to) and I am not forced to accept the “mere” word of the claimant.

If you say that this approach is unreasonable, then I will have to disagree. Checking claims before accepting them should be the norm, not the exception. I am sure that someone will jump in asks about checking the credentials of the airline pilot, and makes snide remarks about that I am not consistent. But in this case I am willing to forego the personal checking because to doubt here would be unreasonable. The airlines conduct very thorough checking procedures, and the ironclad evidence of this checking is the practical nonexistence of fatal pilot errors.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

May I suggest that you have been praying the wrong way? Instead of saying, “God, I demand that you fix the starvation problem immediately!” try “Lord, how could I help the starving people in the world?” and that may lead you to find ways that you can actually be a force of good for this problem. And don’t tell me that you think this world should be a perfect Eden. Without challenges, no man could show his honor, his care, his strength in the face of adversity.

Obviously my parents and other relatives “neglected” to teach me the “proper” prayer: “never ask for anything out of the ordinary, which can be verified”. In other words, it is fine to pray for more snow during a blizzard, but not praying for the snow during a heat wave in July. Also it is fine to pray for something that cannot be verified, like “salvation”. If one uses these two simple “tricks”, then most prayers will be “answered”, and as such yield a “reinforcement”. This is called a “self-fulfilling prophecy”.

I don’t know how many times I need to repeat: “I am not asking for ‘perfect’ creation”, merely for eliminating the human violence. Though, of course there would be nothing wrong with “Eden”. When you say that we would be unable to exercise honor, etc… it is called “sour grapes”, to make a virtue out of necessity.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thank you. I am surprised, because you are the first one who makes that claim. Everyone else offered a “cop-out”, usually saying that the church cares about salvation, and not with the verse-to-verse analysis or the scriptures. I have two questions: Is this book an “officially accepted” compilation having the imprimatur of the church? And can I get to it online?

As you know there is the “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” (skepticsannotatedbible.com/) which deals with the problems and questions arising from the bible.

I have had to learn Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, though my Greek is not yet perfect so I can study the Holy Scriptures verse-by-verse. It’s part of the PhD program I’m now in, so I’m familiar with the Bible.

The Church cares about the whole of Holy Scripture and the whole of a person’s life. Of course the Church cares about salvation, but it also cares about how we get to salvation, which is spelled out in the Bible. The Bible is the story of God’s relationship with man, his creation, so it occupies a place of prime importance in the Church.

Yes, you can get Catholic Study Bibles that have the imprimatur, though not all do. I am not sure if you can find them online as I have never looked online for them.