We don't need definitive proof of God

[Kullervo]

I’ve heard on this forum and in other places that we don’t need a mathematical, pure reason proof for the existence of God to be sure it’s the truth. Even Jesus suggests it I think “‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’”. If not by this cold enlightenment reason than how do we may know that we have the truth. That it hasn’t been lost through the ages, the the traditions are true…
I live in a very atheistic country, so this concept seems a bit foreign to me, yet I have the gift of faith from my Polish mother and I believe based on reason and trust in people who claim they know and I would like to understand how smart people in the ancient times could confidently believe, even to the point of death.

 

[Neithan]

Ancient philosophers knew the limits of reasoning, whether they were radical skeptics like Pyrrho, naturalists like Democritus, or realists like Plato and Aristotle. There is no mathematical proof of anything in the world because the world is not a mathematical system. The best we can do with pure reason is make an educated guess about what makes the most sense, and what is the most consistent with our experience of the world.

As for faith, there is no definitive proof, only circumstantial evidence and testimony from witnesses. We can and should test it with our reasoning, because faith and reason should never contradict; however, the truths that are revealed by God are beyond the reach of our reason, and accepting them is a risk, as trust is always a risk. The certainty of faith is a supernatural gift.

 

[Dan_Defender]

We have enough ‘proof’ as it were. Science has never been able to explain everything that is why there is a bunch of theories out there, the latest being dark matter and dark energy.
At the same time, if there were a mathematical pure reason proof then we wouldn’t have free will anymore but be forced to believe. God does not want us to accept him by coercion.

 

[MPat]

I’ve heard on this forum and in other places that we don’t need a mathematical, pure reason proof for the existence of God to be sure it’s the truth. Even Jesus suggests it I think “‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’”. If not by this cold enlightenment reason than how do we may know that we have the truth. That it hasn’t been lost through the ages, the the traditions are true…
I live in a very atheistic country, so this concept seems a bit foreign to me, yet I have the gift of faith from my Polish mother and I believe based on reason and trust in people who claim they know and I would like to understand how smart people in the ancient times could confidently believe, even to the point of death.

In many cases one does not really “need” a mathematical proof for mathematical theorems either.

For example, one can calculate vector’s length from its coordinates without being able to prove Pythagorean theorem. That is useful anyway, although, of course, it would be still better to know the proof.

Also, Pascal’s Wager proves that it is still perfectly reasonable to believe without a proof of God’s existence - it is still sufficient, if you merely find God’s existence and non-existence equally likely.

At the same time, if there were a mathematical pure reason proof then we wouldn’t have free will anymore but be forced to believe. God does not want us to accept him by coercion.

I guess you have never tried to present a mathematical proof of some counter-intuitive proposition to someone…

For example, try to present a proof that the number of natural numbers is equal to the number of rational numbers, but less than the number of real numbers, or that 0.9999… = 1, and you will see how little proofs force the will…

Maybe people can be forcefully “presuaded” by force, peer pressure or torture, but definitely not by proofs. Which, by the way, explains why atheists are quite capable to stay atheists after having many proofs presented to them. And to dismiss them, since “that was not evidence!!!” (by which they mean that it did not forcefully persuade - which, as you can see, is only to be expected).

 

[lil_user]

When you are in love, it is neither purely about reason, nor is it exclusively about feelings.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I’ve heard on this forum and in other places that we don’t need a mathematical, pure reason proof for the existence of God to be sure it’s the truth.

Keep in mind that even math has its limitations. Math can describe something that is real and be true, and it can also describe something that is not reality and be true. That’s why in the hard sciences like physics, math is not enough by itself to prove anything. It requires other evidence.

 

[Economist]

I’ve heard on this forum and in other places that we don’t need a mathematical, pure reason proof for the existence of God to be sure it’s the truth.

That should be obvious. Mathematics is an abstract science, which is based on axioms. A mathematical theorem is true, if it is the logical corollary of the axioms. It has nothing to do with reality, physical or otherwise. Quite different from the physical sciences.

As for God’s existence, some people find the available evidence convincing, others do not. When I had conversations about the subject, I was somewhat surprised about the nature of the evidence presented. It was indistinguishable from the evidence presented by any other religion.

Any physical evidence would be better than a million of hearsay stories. After all no one can deny the existence of a baseball bat hitting the head, or the caressing touch of a loving mother.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Any physical evidence would be better than a million of hearsay stories. After all no one can deny the existence of a baseball bat hitting the head, or the caressing touch of a loving mother.

But for love to be evidence, you would have to first prove such motivations objectively exist at all. A hyper rational view might dismiss such expressions as utility. How can I know that the other person loves me, truly? I don’t have access to the private sphere of other individuals. But what you say about mothers is easy to digest, most people would admit their mothers love them. But how do you prove that, and therefore accept it as “physical” evidence over the other evidence you dismiss from theists? Can I love someone without demonstrating an observable/recorded action as evidence? Or is love only real when it can be measured, etc. etc. My point is, something as real to us as love, does not meet the bar for proof in science any more than God does. But I believe it is real.

 

[Economist]

How can I know that the other person loves me, truly?

What is “truly”? What differentiates the “true” love from the “pretend” love?

My point is, something as real to us as love, does not meet the bar for proof in science any more than God does.

It certainly does. Without physical manifestation the expression: “I love you” is just an empty phrase. We only have one kind of “I/O” device, the physical organs we can use to accept external information. It is true that not everyone has the same level skepticism (more is the pity!). Some people are more “gullible” than others, and they can easily become victims of snake-oil peddlers. Which is not a smart attitude, after all Catholicism also warns us about the manipulation of the “father of lies”, which tells me: “get the best possible evidence, don’t be gullible.” And since the best evidence is the physical one… I follow the teaching of Catholicism, when I stay very skeptical.

 

[lelinator]

irenaeuslyons:

My point is, something as real to us as love, does not meet the bar for proof in science any more than God does. But I believe it is real.

It certainly does. Without physical manifestation the expression: “I love you” is just an empty phrase. We only have one kind of “I/O” device, the physical organs we can use to accept external information.

Many animals, geese for example, mate for life.

Do you consider that proof that geese love their mates in the same way that you might love yours?

Many husbands abuse their wives, does that prove that they don’t love them?

 

[Economist]

Many animals, geese for example, mate for life.

Do you consider that proof that geese love their mates in the same way that you might love yours?

I am sure you know that this has nothing to do with the topic.

Many husbands abuse their wives, does that prove that they don’t love them?

Yes, it does. Abuse is incompatible with love.

 

[lelinator]

Yes, it does. Abuse is incompatible with love.

Okay, but now you’re going to have to set a threshold, and prove that that threshold is correct.

What threshold of abuse proves that a husband doesn’t love his wife? Does verbal abuse count? Does emotional abuse count? Is there any husband who hasn’t abused his wife in some way?

 

[lelinator]

lelinator:

Many animals, geese for example, mate for life.

Do you consider that proof that geese love their mates in the same way that you might love yours?

I am sure you know that this has nothing to do with the topic.

I beg to differ. You said, and I quote.

Without physical manifestation the expression: “I love you” is just an empty phrase.

So if an animal, human or otherwise displays characteristics that we would associate with love, then that should constitute proof of love, if your argument is correct.

After all, you yourself stated that physical manifestations are the only reliable evidence. So on what basis would you accept such physical proof in one instance, but not in another?

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.

If Jesus Christ says you must have faith, then so be it.

 

[Economist]

Okay, but now you’re going to have to set a threshold, and prove that that threshold is correct.

What threshold of abuse proves that a husband doesn’t love his wife? Does verbal abuse count? Does emotional abuse count? Is there any husband who hasn’t abused his wife in some way?

Yes, there are many.

So if an animal, human or otherwise displays characteristics that we would associate with love, then that should constitute proof of love, if your argument is correct.

After all, you yourself stated that physical manifestations are the only reliable evidence. So on what basis would you accept such physical proof in one instance, but not in another?

Come on. We use all sorts of phrases in different contexts. There are animals who sacrifice themselves for their “young-uns”, and we don’t call that act as a manifestation of “agape”, do we? When we talk about dogs, we say that dogs exhibit “loyalty”. But that is not the same as human loyalty.

Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.

If Jesus Christ says you must have faith, then so be it.

Faith without evidence is blind faith. Sorry, that is not acceptable for non-christians. You can accept it, but that is your business.

 

[po18guy]

There is the intellectual - which must not be discarded or minimized (since God gave us the intellect), but there is the spiritual!

And that is what is woefully disregarded in this sensual world.

“It is the Spirit that gives life.”

Said by a really famous Guy.

 

[lelinator]

lelinator:

Is there any husband who hasn’t abused his wife in some way?

Yes, there are many.

I think that the number of husbands who have never abused their wives in some way is exactly equal to the number of people who are without sin…zero.

I’ll ask again…what threshold of abuse is proof that a husband doesn’t love his wife?

There are animals who sacrifice themselves for their “young-uns”, and we don’t call that act as a manifestation of “agape”, do we? When we talk about dogs, we say that dogs exhibit “loyalty”. But that is not the same as human loyalty.

How do you justify disregarding physical manifestations of love and loyalty in one instance, and yet consider them to be proof in another instance? That seems a little hypocritical to me.

Either they’re proof…or they’re not.

 

[Economist]

I think that the number of husbands who have never abused their wives in some way is exactly equal to the number of people who are without sin…zero.

Maybe you think so. But since “sin” is an undefined concept, it is not helpful.

How do you justify disregarding physical manifestations of love and loyalty, in one instance, and yet consider them to be proof in another instance? That seems a little hypocritical to me.

First of all, I only speak of evidence, and not “proof”. I am sure that you heard of the concepts of “necessary” and “sufficient” evidence. Start it from there. A mute person cannot express her love in words, but can express it in deeds. My point was and still is simple: “Words without deeds are insufficient.” I did not say anything about the opposite.

 

[lelinator]

Maybe you think so. But since “sin” is an undefined concept, it is not helpful.

I ask again…what threshold of abuse is proof that a husband doesn’t love his wife?

***This is the threshold at which it becomes obvious that you don’t have an answer to this question. Thus your assertion that a husband who abuses his wife, doesn’t love her, is without merit.

First of all, I only speak of evidence , and not “ proof ”.

Again, let me quote.

irenaeuslyons:

My point is, something as real to us as love, does not meet the bar for proof in science any more than God does. But I believe it is real.

It certainly does.

A mute person cannot express her love in words, but can express it in deeds.

So in the case of a mute person you accept that deeds without words constitutes…ahem, “evidence” of love, and yet in the case of other animals you choose to disregard such deeds. By what reasoning do you justify such a discrepancy?

 

[Neithan]

Any physical evidence would be better than a million of hearsay stories.

Physical evidence of God? The classic arguments work form the physical universe as physical evidence. You can be unconvinced of the reasoning, but that’s a lot of evidence.