What are the best books for proving the existence of God?

[Detales]

I gather that since you ask, the Bible has failed for you as a resource. Clearly, “proof” by reason or a book is impossible. Nevertheless, these are good tools:

The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object Franklin Merrell-Wollf

The Crest Jewel of Discrimination Adi Shankara

I AM THAT Nisargadatta

Basic Self Knowledge Harry Benjamin

Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity Gina Cerminara

As wonderful as Augustin is, his best proof was at the end of his life when he woke up and said his work was “as straw” and wished to burn it all. This is not uncommon upon awakening in many traditions. If you get the point of the above books, you can burn them, too, as you will be able to speak with an authority beyond faith.

 

[PadraigPearce]

Part of the reason I suggested Augustine was because religious proofs can be very unconvincing for some people. Look at Philosopher Mortimer Adler, for example. He was editor of the encyclopedia Britannica, a master of Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy and an all around brilliant man. One would think if anyone would be convinced by the religious proofs it would be him. Yet despite being so well acquainted with all the proofs for God, he remained an atheist until very late in his life, when he said God granted him he grace of faith.
The Confessions have sort of a luminous quality that’s hard to put into words. To say you are unconvinced by Augustine’s arguments is to miss the whole spirit of the book. Reading it is like getting a glimpse of God’s revelation to one person.

 

[Detales]

Padraig, by your own words even Adler, a hero of mine, was granted a gift of faith, not convinced by a proof. That is wonderful, but it is not in the line of a cognitive proof of which there are none. Though there is a cognitive line that can stem from a genuine realization, that cognitive line is a pointer, not the actual experience, similar to a map not being the territory it represents. And, again it is not that Augustin’s work isn’t valuable as a scaffolding, but it is not yet the structure itself. His statement about burning his work is simply an indication that he stepped off the scaffolding and took up residence in the edifice itself. We are all similarly invited, despite the obstacle of faith. This obstacle of faith is to be overcome in the same way as some are enjoined “If you meet the Buddha on the path, slay him.” There is a foundationally sound and practical reason for that maneuver. I hope you discover it.

 

[PadraigPearce]

Padraig, by your own words even Adler, a hero of mine, was granted a gift of faith, not convinced by a proof. That is wonderful, but it is not in the line of a cognitive proof of which there are none. Though there is a cognitive line that can stem from a genuine realization, that cognitive line is a pointer, not the actual experience, similar to a map not being the territory it represents. And, again it is not that Augustin’s work isn’t valuable as a scaffolding, but it is not yet the structure itself. His statement about burning his work is simply an indication that he stepped off the scaffolding and took up residence in the edifice itself. We are all similarly invited, despite the obstacle of faith. This obstacle of faith is to be overcome in the same way as some are enjoined “If you meet the Buddha on the path, slay him.” There is a foundationally sound and practical reason for that maneuver. I hope you discover it.

You’re mixing up Augustine with Aquinas. It was Aquinas who said his work was like straw compared to the infused experience of God he had. But the principle is the same. Reading the confessions, like listening to Mozart, or looking at a beautiful painting, takes me outside of myself and gives me a glimpse of a higher world. That may not be convincing proof, but it’s convincing to me.

 

[Detales]

Sorry, Padraig, you are right. I meant Aquinas. And I don’t deny the beauty of the structure of the scaffolding, but it is just that there is more. And that is always seen in the fullness of time and cannot be pressed, neither can it be argued into acceptance. I don’t doubt that you will see.

 

[wanstronian]

The problem I have with your “instinctive view” is that you put unicorns and fairies on the same level as God, completely ignoring the intelligence, study and practice of billions of people over the centuries. Don’t you see yourself as very arrogant in doing so?

No, I see myself as rational and level-headed. I inspect the evidence for each (none) so class them the same. Just because lots of people believe what’s written in a book, that doesn’t mean it’s true. Millions of people used to believe in multiple gods - some still do. What makes them wrong but you right?

You didn’t answer my other question….what are you doing here? Are you searching for that proof or are you here to try to convince others that there is no God? If that is the case, what is your motive?

I’ll never convince people that there is no God - nor would I try, because I don’t know whether that’s true. I take a mild exception to people producing weak and flawed ‘proofs’ for God in order to justify their belief, so I like to point out the flaws where I see them. It would be the same with any logical argument, it’s just that theist logic seems generally weaker than in any other field of learning so it makes for a more available activity. And it’s also a field in which a layman can come straight in and contribute - you don’t need a doctorate in anything to understand the arguments.
It’s interesting, because I always thought that belief in God was supposed to be based on faith alone; it’s entertaining to see the attempts people make to rationalise their beliefs. Although it can also be frustrating discussing with the more dogmatic members.

How do you believe that good is defined?

I’ve never tried to define it; ‘good’ is a subjective concept, although I believe that the majority of people would agree on the majority of its aspects.

 

[edward_george]

I’m not trying to start a flame war here (honestly!) but it’s worth mentioning that all the ‘proofs’ mentioned in this thread so far have been repeatedly and comprehensively debunked.

The fact is that there is no proof for God’s existence. It’s a matter of faith alone.

So maybe your question should have been: “In which books would I find the more convincing arguments for the existence of God?” to which the answer would presumably have to be, “it depends on how easily you’re convinced of stuff.” But I’m guessing the suggestions given above would be reasonable.

A note about Aquinas though: I don’t understand why he’s held in such a high regard, as his five ‘proofs’ are nothing of the kind. As I understand it, even he allowed for the fact that one would already have to believe in God for his final statement, “this we call God” to be accepted without being highlighted for the bare assertion that it is. However it seems that many theists hold Thomas to be bang on the money; presumably because his ‘proofs’ support their already-held conclusion. The fact is, none of his ‘proofs’ will convince anybody with a fundamental grasp of logic, who doesn’t already believe in God. They’re just emotionally appealing rhetoric at best.

I think you’re putting too much into the fact that Aquinas’ arguments are sometimes called “proofs.” They aren’t proofs in the empirical sense, which seems to be the only sense that matters these days (empirical knowledge isn’t the only kind of knowledge, but that opens a whole other can of worms). They are proofs in the philosophical sense, insofar as they can satiate the mind’s desire to know the answer to the question of whether there is a God. Aquinas himself doesn’t even say he is proving the existence of God, merely that he has five “ways” to know God’s existence.

That being said, they do not begin with the fact of God and then justify it; rather they begin with a few blank-slate observations about the universe which ultimately result in logical contradictions that can only be explained by the one, transcendent, independent, uncreated, unmoved, pinnacle of perfection which guides all things to their ends. And this we call God.

 

[dmelosi]

No, I see myself as rational and level-headed. I inspect the evidence for each (none) so class them the same. Just because lots of people believe what’s written in a book, that doesn’t mean it’s true. Millions of people used to believe in multiple gods - some still do. What makes them wrong but you right?I’ll never convince people that there is no God - nor would I try, because I don’t know whether that’s true. I take a mild exception to people producing weak and flawed ‘proofs’ for God in order to justify their belief, so I like to point out the flaws where I see them. It would be the same with any logical argument, it’s just that theist logic seems generally weaker than in any other field of learning so it makes for a more available activity. And it’s also a field in which a layman can come straight in and contribute - you don’t need a doctorate in anything to understand the arguments.
It’s interesting, because I always thought that belief in God was supposed to be based on faith alone; it’s entertaining to see the attempts people make to rationalise their beliefs. Although it can also be frustrating discussing with the more dogmatic members.I’ve never tried to define it; ‘good’ is a subjective concept, although I believe that the majority of people would agree on the majority of its aspects.

Your attempt to disguise that you are here to try to shed doubt is not working. Your arrogance keeps shining through, I cannot see what good you are trying to accomplish.

 

[Mike5575]

I would suggest a different approach than the philosophical arguments. While those are good – from St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure and others (or as interpreted by contemporary Catholics, Peter Kreeft, Fr. Farrell, Scott Hahn (Reason to Believe) – it’s important to know something much more than mere intellectual arguments. The best approach is to learn and know the lives of those who lived the faith – where belief in God was incarnated in a person.
So – I would start with the Life of our Blessed Lord from a Catholic perspective. Henri Daniel Rops’ “Daily Life …” or Fr. Pratt’s two-volume set, or Abp. Sheen’s Life of Christ are all great starting points.
After that – the lives of the saints are essential. The lives of the Desert Fathers, the life of St. Athanasius, the life of St. Benedict and the life of St. Francis are essential classics.
These biographies will open your mind to the mystical component of Catholicism and you’ll see how God transformed people.

Daily Life in the time of Jesus and Life of Christ sound like wonderful books that explain what it was like to live in the time of Jesus and to get a better understanding of the man, but how do these books explain the existence of god?

 

[wanstronian]

Your attempt to disguise that you are here to try to shed doubt is not working. Your arrogance keeps shining through, I cannot see what good you are trying to accomplish.

Thanks for the pop psychology lesson.
It’s impossible to refute your accusation of arrogance, because merely by pointing out that I’m right will fuel your argument, purely BECAUSE you believe I’m wrong.
I told you why I’m here; you don’t have to believe me. Although I should point out, you believe some far more wacky ideas.

 

[dmelosi]

Thanks for the pop psychology lesson.
It’s impossible to refute your accusation of arrogance, because merely by pointing out that I’m right will fuel your argument, purely BECAUSE you believe I’m wrong.
I told you why I’m here; you don’t have to believe me. Although I should point out, you believe some far more wacky ideas.

You prove the arrogance part with this statement.

 

[wanstronian]

You prove the arrogance part with this statement.

That was my point .

 

[Mike5575]

Could we please keep the arguing and name calling down to a minimum and focus on the topic at hand?

 

[reggieM]

Daily Life in the time of Jesus and Life of Christ sound like wonderful books that explain what it was like to live in the time of Jesus and to get a better understanding of the man, but how do these books explain the existence of god?

That is a good question – thanks for posing it.
The Daily Life and Life of Christ books are biographies of Jesus Christ written by two prominent, scholarly authors. Daniel-Rops was a highly regarded historian and man of literature in France in his era. Fulton Sheen had high credentials as well.

So, we have books about the life of Christ. How can these be proofs of the existence of God?

First, when we talk about “to prove” in this context we are talking about what some dictionaries give as the primary meaning of the term:
– to establish the truth or genuineness of
it can also mean:
–To demonstrate to by reasoning or procedure; inform
synonyms
– to show, display, exhibit
as in:
I will prove my love to her.

This is essential since God requires that each person must have faith in Him.
To prove the existence of God is to discover that God exists. This discovery is different than merely observing the effects of a formula.

For example: we can predict the result of the formula: 5+8. We know it is 13.
Nothing it discovered there and no faith is required.

But in proving the existence of God it is a discovery that can come through reasoning as well as through other means.

So what about the life of Christ?

I will propose that Christ’s mission was to prove that God exists.

He did that, not through philosophical constructs but through other means.

For the apostle John, he discovered the proof that God exists, and explained it like this (Jn 1:1-14):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men: and the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. That was the true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, to them He gave great power to become the sons of God: to them that believe in His name: who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

The highlighted passages give a few clues. First, St. John the Baptist’s mission was to prove that God exists. He “gave testimony of the light”.
Secondly, St. John the apostle validates his own claims about the Word (at the beginning and as creator) by saying “we saw his glory”.

Otherwise, how would someone know these things? How could there be this much certainty?

The life of Christ tells us about Christ’s mission and his life. His mission was to prove that God exists, among other things. His life was to do the same.

So, when we read about the details of his life we can observe God’s action with mankind. Biographers give support to the facts about the life of Christ as well. Their scholarship shows that He did live and did have followers. The history of the Church itself gives evidence of the existence of God. Two great sources are the highly-refined and time-tested spiritual paths that are detailed by great teachers of the Church, and as I said before – the lives of those who lived in deep union with God (or we might call them mystics).

 

[MonFrere]

Mike,

I think one should always read good books on topics that satisfy our curiosity.

But if you’re really serious I suggest you go into an empty (or almost empty) Catholic Church. At the front of the church, most often in the center of the sanctuary area is a golden box or container. If it’s not there, go to another Church until you find it. Then pray words to this effect. God, I don’t know if you exist or not. If you do, I need your help. (If you want, add more words – if you want, be silent for a time). Make this place your place of reflection and return on occasion. If you do this with a sincere desire to know and don’t lose heart I don’t think you cannot NOT find your answer.

MonFrere

 

[Detales]

MonFrere, I like your phrase “incense to the ears!” Very nice. Thank you.

On the other hand, the very phrasing of your recommended prayer implies that God is a “person” capable of response in terms apprehendable by human awareness. I do not see how this is possible, even if considering what one system names “Ishwara,” the Creative person of Divinity in time.

Given that Music, that which I consider to be at the root of all art and science in one way or another, is a Universal beyond our world speck, I would think that one such as you might have greater than a homocentric view of the Almighty.

To me, Sound, equatable to the Word as stated at the beginning of John, ought be a door way (pun intended) to a far larger than christianist understanding and inquiry into the experience of Divinity.

You sound like someone taken by the ethereal and numinous in music. What a great gift!

 

[MonFrere]

On the other hand, the very phrasing of your recommended prayer implies that God is a** “person” **capable of response in terms apprehendable by human awareness. I do not see how this is possible, even if considering what one system names “Ishwara,” the Creative person of Divinity in time.

Given that Music, that which I consider to be at the root of all art and science in one way or another, is a Universal beyond our world speck,** I would think that one such as you might have greater than a homocentric view of the Almighty**.

My view of God is certainly formed by traditional Christian dogma. The view of one God in three divine persons can also be viewed as Divine Relationship. So, theologians as recent as Pope John Paul II has said that God in His essence is “family”. So, God is “personal” if one is formed by traditional Christianity.

I also must view God as “wholly other” – totally beyond me or any created creature. But, because of this, and our understanding of man. we understand that God made us for Him. To do that He has given us the means and helps to understand Him that He is a personal God and one that we can relate to. The ultimate condescension is Jesus Christ who, though God, became man. God does indeed relate to us AT OUR LEVEL – even though He is “wholly other”. This He does FOR US. Catholics believe that the Eucharist and Eucharistic Adoration is God’s real personal presence before us. Therefore, prayer is true communication with the Almighty.

Since you seem to have an interest in the more esoteric maybe you would find value in some of the mystic traditions of the Church. To get started I’d recommend you get a book on Lectio Divina. This is a special way of praying the scriptures. I would also recommend reading the Diary of St. Faustina – Divine Mercy in My Soul. Here you will read of the life of a true bone fide mystic of the Church who is also a Saint of the Church. I think a person as you would find these two books helpful. After getting your feet wet with these, then you could try something more advanced.

Best to you,
MonFrere

 

[Detales]

Thanks, MonFrere, I appreciate your time in replying to my post. I am, however, a very well catechized RC and left daily practice when neither clerics not literature even such as you mention were inadequate to my particular life altering event. I have been a student of Wisdom Teachings and philosophy, and by extension therefore an observer of the Church, for these last about forty-five years. I have come to greatly admire Aquinas, especially his last few months at his final revelation, and St. Theresa of Avila.

Unfortunately, or not, I have discovered too much to generally discredit the Church and christianism in general during those years to even remotely consider returning to that limited venue of consideration. I still encounter people on here who quote St. Paul that we ought work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Yes, indeed. That is a mature and useful position from which to Love. More suitable for a battered spouse, I would say.

Nevertheless, I know that you find a way to high considerations of Divinity and comfort through your musical venue of devotion. How can you not? And I feel that yours is a wonderful way of discovery. I trust that it brings you much of superb value, and admire you for that. If you were not of good soul nature, you would not have extended me your hand in brotherhood. That to me is an more of an example of what a teaching based on Love might precipitate into our world as distinct from dogmas and precepts of limitations of God and Man.

 

[reggieM]

I still encounter people on here who quote St. Paul that we ought work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Yes, indeed. That is a mature and useful position from which to Love. More suitable for a battered spouse, I would say.

It might be a battered spouse, but in this case – the spouse is God and we are the batterers. St. Paul’s fear and trembling is a response to an inner reflection on sin – one’s own actual sins and our potential for falling into temptation.

Those who dismiss the power and necessity of the Catholic religion usually declare that they’ve found some other way to deal with their own sins.
Either they don’t or can’t ever commit sins, or perhaps they forgive themselves for their own sins against God – or they have a special agreement with God that enables them to receive forgiveness without the need for repentance or reparation.

But for those who embrace the teaching of Christ as given through His Church – the liberating power of Catholicism is found in the absolution of sin as offered through the sacraments.

Where can one go to find the certainty and power of this forgiveness? To some kind of rationalization about how our own sins never really existed – or that we don’t continue to fall into greater or lesser temptations?

A reflective soul will know that a method like that simply doesn’t work. One doesn’t demand forgiveness from God – but rather must humbly ask it – in fear and trembling.

God’s mercy is infinite and generous, but it is only given to those (or received by those) who are sincere in their repentance.

 

[Detales]

Yes, “repentance” is a word mistranslated from “metanoia” a word that has even deepr significance than perhaps the Pauline translators understood. It would be an interesting exercise for many on here to understand dialogic process and its influence on religious thought, especially after nearly 2000 years.

And what really scares me, Reggie, is the addendum “…as given through His Church.” That makes a couple of wild source assumptions that are exceptionally hard to corroborate, and are dubious at best. The best takes on those are widely divergent from the Church’s own self serving interpretation. But what would you expect? What if the Church admitted what it already knows?

Sorry Reggie, I can’t buy back into that pap-ism. (sic)