We don't need definitive proof of God

[Economist]

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?

Animals are a different category. But you keep on misdirecting the question. If someone would loudly proclaim their “love” for their spouse, children or any other being (human or not), and if their actions would belie their words, I would NOT accept their words. Is that clear enough?

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.

Only in the eyes of the proponents. As I said before, different people have a different concept of sufficient evidence. I accept that believers find the hearsay type of evidence sufficient - as far as their OWN deity goes. But they are equally skeptic about the same kind of evidence presented for a deity of other religions. I had the opportunity to have several conversations with some Christians and they asked me “what kind of evidence would I find convincing for the existence of the Christian God”. My answer was always the same: “the same kind of evidence YOU would find sufficient for the existence of the god of a different religion”. And that was the end of the conversation.

By the way, here is a pivotal point. Under no circumstances could I find any evidence for a square circle (or a married bachelor) convincing.

 

[John10]

There are countless times in our lives, when we need to “have faith” based on partial evidence. For example, when we marry no one has absolute irrefutable “proof” that their marriage will last. Although we might have good reasons for believing so, when we decide to do it.

Since God is immaterial, and outside of space and time, we could never have any scientific proof of His existence directly. However we have indirect evidence for God’s existence, just as police can figure out a homicide occurred even though they might not have been present when it took place.

 

[Neithan]

My answer was always the same: “the same kind of evidence YOU would find sufficient for the existence of the god of a different religion”.

That’s an interesting discussion. There is an ontological issue there, though. There can only be one supreme being. What you probably mean are the faith claims of different religions. For example the Resurrection, or the golden plates of Mormonism.

Edit: I’m not sure if you’re comparing monotheism with polytheism. To accept evidence of some polytheistic god, I would be willing to accept compelling circumstantial evidence and testimony, much like I do for the supernatural claims that I already accept. I’m not adverse to the existence of preternatural spirits, anyway (angels and demons). As for the flying spaghetti monster, it’s obviously contrived.

By the way, here is a pivotal point. Under no circumstances could I find any evidence for a square circle (or a married bachelor) convincing.

Of course. We’d have to settle on what “God” means, because it can be defined in many different ways, and sometimes incoherently for igtheists.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

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

Traditionally, it is willing the good of the other, solely for the sake of the other. As opposed to willing it for selfish reasons or for utility or not at all. That’s why its often described in theology as a sacrificial love, because the lover is willing to suffer things that are contrary to their self interest, in willing the good of the beloved.

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

What kinds of physical manifestation are you counting as evidence? And how do we know its not self interest or utility? Can a person not love an abstract concept? How about their country?

 

[lelinator]

Is that clear enough?

Actually, no it’s not. It seems obvious at this point that you simply can not provide us with a threshold at which a husband’s abuse is proof that they don’t love their wife.

All that you can offer us is your assurance that some unspecified level of evidence would convince you that the husband doesn’t love his wife.

And so it is with a great many things, there’s some subjective level of evidence that will convince you or I that a particular claim is true, but there’s no definitive level at which such evidence becomes proof.

There’s simply no level of evidence that will prove that God exists. But that won’t stop anyone from believing in God if they’re inclined to do so. And of course the reverse is also true.

So what level of evidence was necessary to convince the “ancients” that God existed? Probably not very much. People see what they want to see. What they’re predisposed to see. So the real question is…what events and experiences predisposed the “ancients” to believe in Elohim, or Allah, or Christ? We’ll probably never know for sure.

But based upon our experience with people today it doesn’t take much evidence to get people to believe in something, be it Bigfoot, or alien visitors, or any number of conspiracy theories. If people are predisposed by their nature, and by their experiences, then they can believe in almost anything, and the evidence is at best a secondary consideration.

So to address the OP…no, you don’t need definitive proof of God, but you do need to ask yourself, if it wasn’t the evidence that caused me to believe what I do, then what was it?

 

[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. 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.

Kullervo
You might be interested in reading this page by Dr. Kreeft. He presents 20 different logical proofs used in history. They are not empirical evidence, but they are logical evidence.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[Brian_K]

@lelinator, what is your evidence against St Thomas Aquinas’ 5 Proofs for the Existence of God? He has an 800-year track record, so minor doubt on the part of the reader does not necessarily render his opinion invalid.

 

[Kullervo]

Thomas had evidence. He saw the miracles of Jesus and had the testimony of his friends.

 

[Kullervo]

Tank you! I appreciate it.

 

[tafan2]

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…

These are really quite simple. If one can illustrate a simple two dimensional matrix and envision counting the diagonals (starting at position 1,1) the first is done. The second only requires one to show there are an infinite number of real numbers between any two real numbers.

 

[Economist]

There are countless times in our lives, when we need to “have faith” based on partial evidence.

The word “faith” is seriously undefined or under-defined.

Since God is immaterial, and outside of space and time, we could never have any scientific proof of His existence directly.

Unless God wishes to manifest himself.

However we have indirect evidence for God’s existence, just as police can figure out a homicide occurred even though they might not have been present when it took place.

I have yet to see any indirect evidence.

What you probably mean are the faith claims of different religions. For example the Resurrection, or the golden plates of Mormonism.

Indeed, that is what I meant. What kind of evidence would you accept for the winged horse of Mohamed? And that the Koran was dictated personally by Allah?

Of course. We’d have to settle on what “God” means, because it can be defined in many different ways, and sometimes incoherently for igtheists.

Yes, that would be the first step. There are at least two Christian “Gods”, one is the “biblical God”, and the other is the “God of philosophers”. And then there is a plethora of other gods.

Traditionally, it is willing the good of the other, solely for the sake of the other.

Yes, I am aware of this traditional definition, and I disagree. The correct definition would be: “to ACT on behalf of another.” No matter what kind of “good” I “will” for your benefit, if I do not ACT on that will, it is meaningless, or just a “pie in the sky”. The act (if there is any) is relevant, the reason for it is not. Whatever the alms-giver’s reason is for giving food to the starving it does not add one calorie to the nutritional value.

What kinds of physical manifestation are you counting as evidence? And how do we know its not self interest or utility?

Actual “giving” food to the hungry. And the reason is irrelevant.

Can a person not love an abstract concept? How about their country?

The word “love” is seriously abused. Yes, I love a good steak, but that has nothing to do with the “love” in this context.

It seems obvious at this point that you simply can not provide us with a threshold at which a husband’s abuse is proof that they don’t love their wife.

I already did. Any abuse negates “love”.

There’s simply no level of evidence that will prove that God exists. But that won’t stop anyone from believing in God if they’re inclined to do so. And of course the reverse is also true.

Of course, and I have NO quarrel with that.

 

[Economist]

You might be interested in reading this page by Dr. Kreeft. He presents 20 different logical proofs used in history. They are not empirical evidence, but they are logical evidence.

None of them works for anyone who does not accept them a-priori.

Thomas had evidence. He saw the miracles of Jesus and had the testimony of his friends.

According to the mythology of the Bible. Not even the church is able (or willing) to separate the allegedly historically accurate verses from the allegorical ones.

 

[lelinator]

@lelinator, what is your evidence against St Thomas Aquinas’ 5 Proofs for the Existence of God? He has an 800-year track record, so minor doubt on the part of the reader does not necessarily render his opinion invalid.

To answer this question, I’m going to do @IWantGod a favor, and think outside of the box, because I like it outside of the box.

The evidence against Aquinas’ Five Ways is extensive, and has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum. It’s also irrelevant, because no amount of “evidence” will convince a skeptic that Aquinas was right, or convince a believer that Aquinas was wrong.

But why is that? Why does evidence appear to be so subjective? The non-intuitive answer is…because it is. Evidence is subjective. Now your knee-jerk reaction is, that that’s impossible. Evidence can’t possibly be subjective. It may be rightly or wrongly interpreted, but it can’t be subjective, because the truth is the truth. What’s true for me, must also be true for you.

But what if that’s not the case, (and science suggests that it isn’t) then what’s true for me, isn’t necessarily true for you. From your perspective Aquinas is right, and from my perspective Aquinas is wrong, and both of those perspectives are correct. To think outside of the box you need to take Einstein’s theory of relativity, and Quantum physic’s concept of uncertainty, and apply them to the very nature of reality itself. Reality is subjective. It depends upon the perspective of the observer. Reality isn’t fixed, it’s observer dependent.

At its very essence reality may be the sum total of what’s possible, and it’s the observer that takes what’s possible, and from it creates what is for them…their own personal version of reality. It’s entirely possible that you’re living in an observer created reality.

Now you no doubt believe that I’m wrong…but can you prove that I am?

 

[lelinator]

I already did. Any abuse negates “love”.

Yes, I’m aware…and that’s a very inadequate answer.

 

[Brian_K]

I don’t believe that you’re wrong, but I do believe God is the act of Reality Himself. What I perceive to be real in the physical world is part of my experience, but it’s a fraction of the whole of existence. Some things in the physical world point to God, but that’s only one part of our overall existence.

 

[lelinator]

but I do believe God is the act of Reality Himself. What I perceive to be real in the physical world is part of my experience, but it’s a fraction of the whole of existence.

Other than the fact that I see no need to personify any underlying cause of reality, I do agree that it must exist.

Now if we go through each of Aquinas’ Five Ways we’ll likely find that we disagree on their veracity, and we’ll each have what we believe to be adequate evidence for doing so. But is it because one of us is better at discerning the proper interpretation of the evidence, or because the evidence itself is ambiguous?

I think that there may be certain things for which the conscious mind simply cannot conceive of a definitive cause, and so it creates ambiguity, and reality looks the way it does exactly because of that ambiguity.

In other words, ambiguity in the evidence may be due to ambiguity in the cause.

 

[Brian_K]

I see no need to personify any underlying cause of reality, I do agree that it must exist.

This is the key for me. Before I came to faith I never realized this was even an option, and it turned out to be the ground of faith itself. But if that’s off the table, the rest of the conversation would be irrelevant, on which point I think we agree.

 

[goout]

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.

Faith is not mere intellectual assent.
Faith is adherence to the person of Christ, and an active responding to Christ. Faith is bound up with love and hope. We trust that the promises of Christ are good and durable, and we live lives of sacrificial love. That is faith.
Understanding apologetics is not the substance of faith.

 

[IWantGod]

but can you prove that I am?

What relevance does quantum physics and the theory of relativity - as it relates to physics - have to do with the general question of “metaphysics” or Aquinas’ argument?

 

[IWantGod]

(and science suggests that it isn’t)

What does science have to do with the discussion?