We don't need definitive proof of God

[goout]

irenaeuslyons:

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.

Think about what you just said for a minute…

 

[IWantGod]

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.

Apart from philosophical debate, personally experiences mostly. We have certain experiences that would not exist if something like metaphysical naturalism were true. If God doesn’t exist, there are certain metaphysical consequences that necessarily follow. One merely has to ask oneself if that is the reality they experience.

 

[Economist]

Evidence can’t possibly be subjective.

What do you mean by the word “evidence”? Facts cannot be disputed, however, their significance and their interpretation certainly can. Many apologists argue that there are many “facts” in the Bible, enumerating miracles, etc… But none of them qualifies as a “fact”.

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

Since the topic of this thread is NOT the analysis of “love”, we can safely leave this alone.

Think about what you just said for a minute…

Huh? A line of reasoning can be logically correct and yet logically unsound. I am sure you know the difference.

 

[tafan2]

Here is my two cents worth: If we define a definitive proof of God to be on the level of a mathematical proof, I agree. But I do think we need a solid argument for God’s existence. At least for me, and I suspect most people, there has to be a intellectually convincing argument for God before we make an act of faith. This may be Aquinas’s 5 ways, or it may be an argument such as CS Lewis’'s which is based on the existence of natural law, or it may simply be looking around at this beautiful world and ourselves and saying “this could not have all happened by chance”. But I do think we each need that argument at some level. If not, we could accept any God. Zeus would be sufficient. But we do not accept these mythological Gods. Why? Because they don’t make sense, their existence would not answer our basic questions of where we came from, why we are here.

 

[CelticWarlord]

The best we can do with pure reason is make an educated guess about what makes the most sense,

This is very true. There is a Protestant theologian named William Lane Craig who is known for his debates with non-Christians. He always sums up, not with a dogmatic certainty in his expression, but with the phrase, "I think that “God” is the most plausible explanation." I like this because it removes much of the hostility he faces from some of his guest debaters and is not in the least an “in your face” approach that so many take.

 

[IWantGod]

“in your face” approach that so many take.

How about this for in your face


God’s existence is absolutely certain because without God the very concept of existence does not make any meaningful sense. God’s existence is certain in the same way that i can be certain that a square-circle does not exist, because a square-circle is meaningless - it is nothing at all. In this same way i am certain of God, because if he is removed from the equation, our existence is not a possibility, because the possibility is meaningless without God.

 

[John10]

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

Easy, it’s basically believing in something although you cannot prove it. We use it everyday even atheists.

Unless God wishes to manifest himself.

True, but He is not obliged to do so.
Either way He has already in Jesus Christ, although some time doubt it.

I have yet to see any indirect evidence.

There are tons of evidence for it, however as with many things, those who do not want to believe no reason will ever be enough.

 

[Economist]

This is very true. There is a Protestant theologian named William Lane Craig who is known for his debates with non-Christians. He always sums up, not with a dogmatic certainty in his expression, but with the phrase, "I think that “God” is the most plausible explanation. "

That is nice, but useless. What he believes is plausible, is his opinion, which has no explanatory value. I would like to have a conversation with him, or any other apologist… in depth and in detail.

 

[Economist]

Easy, it’s basically believing in something although you cannot prove it. We use it everyday even atheists.

This is much too vague to be helpful. It washes away the difference between for some minor evidence and believing in something for which not only there is no supporting evidence, but all the evidence points to the other direction.

True, but He is not obliged to do so.

That is none of my concern. We could have direct evidence if God wanted to demonstrate it. Since there is no such evidence, we can draw our own conclusion from the lack of it.

Either way He has already in Jesus Christ, although some time doubt it.

This just mythology, not evidence.

There are tons of evidence for it, however as with many things, those who do not want to believe no reason will ever be enough.

As I said, I would be happy just to see ONE evidence.

 

[John10]

This is much too vague to be helpful. It washes away the difference between for some minor evidence and believing in something for which not only there is no supporting evidence

There is supporting indirect evidence, so we have very good reasons to believe.

Here at Catholic Answers many have written books about this issue, they are better than I am to explain it from an atheist perspective.

Link: https://whywearecatholic.com/

However, when someone does not want to believe, nothing will ever convince him.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

irenaeuslyons:

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.

So for you, love begins and ends with the act. I loved the homeless man two minutes ago in the act of feeding him, but now I don’t because I ran out of food. So a paralyzed child does not love his parents because he can do nothing beneficial for the parents, just “empty words” as you have indicated. So the despot was showing love to his starving prisoners in the gulag because he ordered them fed, because as you say, the reason does not matter.

 

[Neithan]

What he believes is plausible, is his opinion, which has no explanatory value.

Either there is an explanation or there is not. If one accepts the “causal closure” of naturalism, then that’s denying there is an explanation for nature. It’s a brute fact. Any plausible explanation has more explanatory value than “it just is.”

 

[CelticWarlord]

What he believes is plausible, in his opinion

Yes, of course. Aren’t all such conversations just a sharing of opinion? You have done the same thing by categorizing Dr. Craig’s comment as useless. It may well be for you. It isn’t for me. Since the whole premise of “God” is that he cannot be seen, measured, located spatially, or defined using human terms, then there is nothing more to state than what the individual deems to be “plausible”.

 

[Kullervo]

I was just replying to a prior post where someone wrote that he had no proof.

 

[Economist]

There is supporting indirect evidence, so we have very good reasons to believe.

I am sure you believe this.

However, when someone does not want to believe, nothing will ever convince him.

This is insulting. No matter how much one wants NOT to believe in the existence of gravity, jumping off from a ten story building will be sufficient to convince her.

So for you, love begins and ends with the act.

No, it does not, and I did not say it. Love is a mental state, which must be expressed in actions for it to be significant. That paralyzed child does express her love with the abilities she still has. The cruel parent, who frequently beats his children, but buys them a lollipop during visitation hours, does not love those children.

Do I really have to explain these in such a detail?

Either there is an explanation or there is not.

Explanatory value is subjective. I can spend my time to try to explain calculus to a ten years old, even very bright one, but she will not understand it.

Since the whole premise of “God” is that he cannot be seen, measured, located spatially, or defined using human terms, then there is nothing more to state than what the individual deems to be “plausible”.

Sure. But in that case there is no difference between God and “nonexistence”. That is why the pure negative theology is insufficient. You need to say something “positive” before we can have any idea what are you talking about. By the way, the frequently used attributes, like “omnipotence”, “omniscience”, etc… all express the lack of limitations. The definition of Anselm: “the greatest conceivable being” is the same. A limitless being with “infinite” attributes. And infinite attributes are contradiction in terms. (By the way, I CAN imagine a “greater” being that Anselm’s idea.)

By the way, your post is right on the money. Any evidence for God (or anything else) MUST start with a precise definition of what we are going to talk about. To express this in a slightly playful fashion: "when I meet with someone who is purported to be God, how do I know that it is not an impostor, but really the actual ‘McCoy’? " Maybe this should be discussed?

 

[John10]

No matter how much one wants NOT to believe in the existence of gravity, jumping off from a ten story building will be sufficient to convince her.

Once our earthly life ends, we will have to face God, both believers as well as non-believers.

 

[Economist]

Here at Catholic Answers many have written books about this issue, they are better than I am to explain it from an atheist perspective.

Link: https://whywearecatholic.com/

Of course I am familiar with Horn and his arguments. I would be delighted to have a conversation with him, or anyone who is willing to argue along his lines.

I read the presented first chapter, and I found some basic errors it it. Here is the first one: “Here’s the problem with saying “there is no absolute truth”: this statement is an absolute truth.” No, it is NOT. It is just another trickery of “This proposition is false.” One of Bertrand Russell’s famous paradoxes. (Is it true, or is it false?) It exploits the problem of making unqualified general statements.

The proposition of “there are no absolute truths” is NOT a metaphysical proposition. It is an epistemological concept. It simply expresses that propositions are contingent upon the premises, in other words: “they are relative to the circumstances”. If Horn is not aware of this, he is not a good apologist.

Try this simple experiment. Take two buckets of water, one ice cold, the other one quite hot (but not too hot, don’t want to hurt yourself.) And then a third bucket, with tepid water in it. Place you right hand into the hot water, and your left hand into the ice cold one. Wait a few seconds, until both hands are comfortable. Then take them out and place them into the tepid water. What will it feel? It will feel quite hot for your left hand, and very cold for your right hand. The same person, the same water, and two different feelings.

What is your analysis of this experiment?

The temperature of this third bucket of water is objectively “X” degrees. But the subjective feeling is not. It is relative to the circumstances.

The basic problem is the confusion about the dichotomy of “absolute” and “relative” on one hand, and “objective” vs. “subjective” on the other. I have yet to meet with an apologist who is aware of this distinction and is willing to abide by it.

Once our earthly life ends, we will have to face God, both believers as well as non-believers.

But by that time it will be too late!!! No more free will, no repentance And we shall not “believe”, we shall “KNOW”. By the way, this is the one of the most important elements which makes me a skeptic. Why are we demanded to make a choice without the necessary information to base our choices upon?

And please, don’t quote Jesus: “Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe.” Because that only adds insult to injury.

 

[John10]

“Here’s the problem with saying “there is no absolute truth”: this statement is an absolute truth.” No, it is NOT.

It is very straight forward that stating “there are no absolute truths” is self-contradictory and there are tons of obstacles to overcome to think this is true.

I found this article that also deals with this in more detail

Loading…

www.gotquestions.org

What is your analysis of this experiment?

I agree there are some things which are subjective and relative, but that does not in any way prove that there are no objective and absolute truths.

Why are we demanded to make a choice without the necessary information to base our choices upon?

Because it is fair and just that we are all held accountable by how we lived. There are no excuses for not having the necessary information, we have all experienced regret and lived situations which we clearly knew things were not “right”, regardless of our religious beliefs.

However, I will not forced you to believe if you do not want to. I do not need to quote the “Bible”, this things are very self-evident using reason alone.

 

[goout]

You can circle the wagons around semantics all you want. The assertion “there is no absolute truth” is patently absurd.

 

[Pattylt]

Because it is fair and just that we are all held accountable by how we lived

Not according to Catholicism…you are held accountable by how you believe. Judaism is accountable by how they live. Big difference!