What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[JDaniel]

I don’t know if I’d call Plato “new information.” Church scholars know all about Plato and Aristotle – they just didn’t bother to keep up with much philosophy after them. And then they wonder why philosophers roll their eyes after hearing Aquinas repeated by rote, yet again.

To me, self-styled philosophers who can do no more than “roll their eyes” are punk-philosopher-wanna-bees" who ought to stop rolling their eyes once they’ve been called out. If they don’t, then, they are no longer useful as philosophers and should have their eyes put out by a sharp stick. They won’t need them anymore anyway.

jd

 

[masterjedi747]

Your first paragraph there claims you can show he exists… this forum is basically asking that exact question… so how do you show that? What proof do you see that convinces you?

I did give a simple (but perhaps too simple) answer to that in my first post.

My point was that it saddens me that anyone would hate to admit that new information was true.

I guess I’d generally agree with you. But to be fair, it’s not simply the case that “new information” is always reliable or true, just because it’s new.

Discovering new information and truths is one of the great things about life, and yet too often religious people actively try to avoid such things.

I think that’s true for the most part, and it certainly is unfortunate when it happens.

I don’t know if I’d call Plato “new information.”

I… definitely wouldn’t.

Church scholars know all about Plato and Aristotle – they just didn’t bother to keep up with much philosophy after them.

I don’t think that true at all. For one thing, there wasn’t all too much too keep up with at the beginning; but when the Moderns rolled around, I think they certainly did keep up with what was happening – not to say that they simply rolled over and agreed with it – but they were still able to say exactly why they disagreed with the sweeping steps that were being made, and why they were convinced that most of the changes being made were for the worse.

And then they wonder why philosophers roll their eyes after hearing Aquinas repeated by rote, yet again.

If it is being repeated simply by rote, then that’s unfortunate. But even though I’m sure that happens sometimes (especially around here, I would expect), I definitely don’t think that’s always the case. Many intelligent people are capable of arguing Aquinas very well, and they really do understand what they’re saying when they quote from extended portions of the text.

 

[lindalout49]

Care to elaborate on that?

since i came to know the Lord 20 yr ago, i have had some very interesting experieces with the Lord. I had often thought about writing a book telling of these experiences but always thought i could not do that because i was terrible at English and grammar in school. about a year and a half ago i was standing at the sink in my bathroom and out of the blue came these words, not audible, but into my mind…“When are you going to write the book? You are not getting any younger.” I looked in the mirror and said "Woe!!!"I really knew it was the Lord, he has spoke to me like this before concerning other things, but i always think what if it was just my imagination. I asked the Lord to please confirm this to me so as i would be certain it was Him. A week later my sister was critically ill. I was setting by her bed in the early a.m. hours. She was having trouble sleeping, each time she would wake i would coach her to go back to sleep. I was watching her sleep and suddenly she opening her eyes and asked “When are you going to write the book?” I know my mouth dropped open. I had never mentioned to her about writing the book. So, i asked her what should the book be named? she shrugged her shoulders. i asked her what should the book be about, she again shrugged her shoulders.
The Lord confirmed to me what he wanted me to do. God is awesome!

 

[liquidpele]

since i came to know the Lord 20 yr ago, i have had some very interesting experieces with the Lord. I had often thought about writing a book telling of these experiences but always thought i could not do that because i was terrible at English and grammar in school. about a year and a half ago i was standing at the sink in my bathroom and out of the blue came these words, not audible, but into my mind…“When are you going to write the book? You are not getting any younger.” I looked in the mirror and said "Woe!!!"I really knew it was the Lord, he has spoke to me like this before concerning other things, but i always think what if it was just my imagination. I asked the Lord to please confirm this to me so as i would be certain it was Him. A week later my sister was critically ill. I was setting by her bed in the early a.m. hours. She was having trouble sleeping, each time she would wake i would coach her to go back to sleep. I was watching her sleep and suddenly she opening her eyes and asked “When are you going to write the book?” I know my mouth dropped open. I had never mentioned to her about writing the book. So, i asked her what should the book be named? she shrugged her shoulders. i asked her what should the book be about, she again shrugged her shoulders.
The Lord confirmed to me what he wanted me to do. God is awesome!

That is freaky!! Thanks for sharing

Also… did you write the book yet??

 

[Pier]

I’m curious what people consider as proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible. Has anyone had what they would consider a miracle happen, seen an angel, seen a person healed by prayer, etc? I don’t believe because I have never seen any proof, so I am curious what others have seen or what they would even consider proof. My purpose is not to try and explain anything away, I’m actually just genuinely curious about other’s experiences and logic on this subject.

Believing in God is logical - if there was no God, then mankind would be the “smartest” thing going, & we know how illogical that would be - we prove it every day…

Hmmm, unusual happenings. The only one I care to share is something I haven’t been able to figure out for three decades, that has reoccurred throughout that time. The first time I was a teenager, & someone (obviously who knows me) berated me for ignoring her one day. She said I walked right past her, & she kept yelling, “Faith! Faith!” Well, that’s not my name, & she knew it, but for whatever reason she’d mistakenly called me that. Not a big deal. After that first time, it happened again, with different people, at different times at different ages in different places. Always with people who know my real name. Then it changed. Different people at different places & times, who know my real name, periodically began to mistakenly call me, “Hope” - & more than once, these people would immediately say to me, “I don’t know why I called you that”…

I can’t figure it out. I’m not saying that these are “miracles” from God, but they are words associated specifically with Him. I have always believed in God, but I don’t know why this particular mistaken identity has happened throughout the years. And every time, I am amazed…

 

[North_of_Nod]

To the original poster:

The coming of Jesus was prophesied/foreshadowed LONG before he appeared on earth. He fulfilled the Old Testament perfectly, right down the piercing of his side on the cross. Jesus’ crucifixion occurred during the precise time it was predicted (it was foretold long before the Old Testament was even completed). No blind guess could have predicted something that accurately. From a scientific perspective, it is common knowledge that the universe had a beginning, so whatever (Whoever) created it could not have been subject to time or space. The laws of physics did not exist before the beginning of the universe, nor did anything physical. The sun, moon, and stars fell into place perfectly, and the earth was formed from a formless mass, as Genesis describes. There were no astronomers at the time of Genesis’ recording to have creatively hypothesized any other way. Also, the probably that any life could have formed by chance is so minute, that the possibility is hardly worth considering. Please consider this information:

Simply assembling the components to create the simplest kind of a cell would have about 1 chance in 10^112,827 chance of randomly happening. Any mathematician would agree that these odds are virtually zero. The reason for this improbability is that many things are necessary for the key components of DNA and protein chains to work properly. First, molecular orientation must be both. Second, only life-specific amino acids must be used. Third, the amino acids must be put in the proper place. Fourth, the correct material must be put in the right place for the DNA molecule. Firth, the sequencing of genes must be correct for the DNA molecule to function. ALL of these requirements MUST be fulfilled. Further complicating the problem of proper assembly of the components of the first cell of life is the fact that time is limited. Even taking the largest scientific estimate of the age of the universe – fifteen-sixteen billion years, there is not nearly enough time for such an improbably event to even happen. Finally, even if everything miraculously came together, life (and a soul) would still need to be added to non-living matter. We have never seen this happen, nor do we know how to make it happen. The only alternative to the random “evolution” of the first living cell is special creation by a supernatural Source. (source: 101 Reasons You Can Believe by Ralph O. Muncaster, former atheist.)

Also, creatures do not evolve things for which they have no use. Personality, for example, is not vital to survival. The Lord created Man in His Image, giving him a personality and general likeness to Himself. Chemicals/chance do not yield personality; only personality begets personality. Additionally, the Bible, unlike the writings of other false religions, does not contradict itself on any significant points during its recording over the period of thousands of years. One might say that Judaism raises the questions to which Christianity provides the answers.

There is definitely ample proof of God’s existence. If He provided anything more obvious, He’d be taking away our free will. God is all powerful, but He desires that we love Him by choice – not by force. After all, isn’t that the essence of real love? In short, it is a lot easier to prove God’s existence than to disprove it.

I hope this helps! I apologize for the length of my post.

 

[North_of_Nod]

Also, the probably that…

I meant to say “probability”. Yay, sleepiness!

 

[1holycatholic]

A theophany would go a long way for me. But if Mother Theresa never got one, I doubt I’m worthy of one…

A theophany wouldn’t have gone anywhere with David Hume.

 

[DavidHume]

A theophany wouldn’t have gone anywhere with David Hume.

True – a single theophany would certainly not have made a big splash. He’d have needed consistent and repeatable talking burning bushes and miracles before even giving the idea of God any credence whatsoever, and even then it’d be tentative and accepted for practical ends only.

 

[DavidHume]

Ah. Now I see your dilemma. Hume (and you) never understood, or read anything regarding First Principles as derived from the most primitive dialectical observations of mobile being. Such First Principles are abstractions from the most general and most preliminary science of nature known to man, and expose to the beginner: substance and two contraries. First Principles are underived (presuppositionless) and non-dependent on anything else. Principles, whether First Principles or not, underly all cause-and-effect. Thus, all cause-and-effect is presupposed by something that is the conclusion of the most primary dialectical induction ever made by sentient man.

That seems to be a pretty long-winded way of saying “Since I can’t prove it, I am going to assume that causality applies uniformly throughout the universe and throughout time, except of course for this one instance where it benefits my accepted dogma to suspend said assumption.”

Which is fine, I suppose, but it means that you are no more justified than someone else who says “There is a prime mover, and that prime mover is not God,” nor more justified than someone who says “The physical universe has no beginning.”

 

[JesuisSean]

Truth is proof. But who is interested in truth ?

A lot of people think that God is no smarter than the average man, and thus say that nothing can exist within the Bible that the average Joe blow can not see.

We exist on this side of reality. We are confined to the present time. The other side is the other side, and thus extends across all time other than the present time. From the other side, one looks across time and one thinks with that extra forth dimension of consciousness that we mere humans no not posses.

With that skill one can also take information from one point in time and insert it within another time period via prophecies or codes, etc. In fact, the minds are so huge on the other side that one may direct the writing of a book, say the bible for instance, and simultaneously see all translations of such a book, thus one is so brilliant that one knows how to create an original book text that when translated produces specific codes when in this newly translated text. Actually this would be so easy it is about as difficult as a man taking in a breath of air due to those behind it having that extra forth dimension included in the scope of ones consciousness.

**Using English Gematria, where A=6, B=12, C=18, D=24,…, Z=156, words can be converted into numbers.

Examples: GOD = 156, JESUS = 444, CHRIST = 462, etc.**

Now if you look at the KJV New Testament, and search for the words " THE FATHER ", you will find these words (156) times,
thus THE FATHER is GOD since GOD = 156.

Now if you look at the KJV New Testament, and search for the words " THE LORD ", you will find these words (462) times,
thus THE LORD is CHRIST since CHRIST = 462.

Now about the Trinity.

Again if you look at the KJV New Testament, you find the following words the number of times shown below.

THE FATHER…(156)
THE SON…304
THE HOLY SPIRIT…2
…Total = (462)

Once again 156 and 462 appear.
This gives the impression that ONE is the father, the son, and the holy spirit too(2).

Is Christ God then ?

Well if you bring ELS Bible Codes into the picture, and set your ELS Min. and Max range as ( -462 ) to ( 462 ),
and you search for the “MARK” “OF GOD”, you will find the following.

MARK …(462)
OF GOD… 694
…Total = 1(156)
.
156 and 462 appear again.

Or if you bring ELS Bible Codes into the picture, and set your ELS Min. and Max range as 1 to ( 462 ),
and you search for the “MARK” “OF GOD”, you will find the following.

MARK …912
OF GOD… 352
…Total = 1(444)

Here we find 444, and what coincidence since JESUS = 444!
The proceeding “1” implies one JESUS, just as the previous 1(156) implied there is only one GOD.

Or if you bring ELS Bible Codes into the picture, and set your ELS Min. and Max range as 1 to ( 156 ),
and you search for the “WORD” “OF GOD”, you will find the following.

WORD …818
OF GOD … 626
…Total = 1(444)

Here again we find 444, and what coincidence since JESUS = 444!
Just as the previous, “1” implies one JESUS.

JESUS is the messiah, and so it seems to be no coincidence that both JESUS and MESSIAH = 444,
therefore JESUS MESSIAH = 888.
Now if you look at the KJV Old Testament, and set the ELS as 1 to ( 888 )
and then search for the words " THE GOD ", you will find the following.

THE GOD …(462)

Here again we find 462, and what coincidence since CHRIST = 462.

Or if you bring ELS Bible Codes into the picture, and set your ELS Min. and Max range as ( 156 ) to ( 888 ),
and in the KJV NT you search for the “JESUS” " CHRIST" “IS GOD”, you will find the following.

JESUS …18
CHRIST … 20
IS GOD … …118
…Total = (156)

Here again we find 156, GOD, when associated with the words JESUS CHRIST IS GOD.

Is this proof ?
Well there are either plenty of coincidences, or this is saying YES.

But once again, these days people are not even interested in surpassing beliefs to reach direct contact with the truth/proof here in real time or the present time.

In other words, a response to the codes/proof shown above, will be based upon a belief, thus once again no one is interested in reaching the truth since they choose to stop at a belief. A belief is what one depends upon if located at a distance from the truth, thus those who are happy with basing decisions upon beliefs are those who are happy with making an about turn before reaching the actual truth.

People have even said that they need no proof because they believe in God, and thus in no way do they wish to approach him, meaning they are happy with maintaining that gap that sits between the two that is maintained via the practice of beliefs. Thus the question becomes: Is it in any way possible to make a believer be interested in the truth / proof ?

I think not !

 

[D_M]

I’m curious what people consider as proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible. Has anyone had what they would consider a miracle happen, seen an angel, seen a person healed by prayer, etc? I don’t believe because I have never seen any proof, so I am curious what others have seen or what they would even consider proof. My purpose is not to try and explain anything away, I’m actually just genuinely curious about other’s experiences and logic on this subject.

Hi,

I’ve seen miracles and supernatural things, although while these things are evidence for God’s existence, I don’t think I would have stated that they were 100% proof for the Christian God. I say this because only a few of them have no possible natural explanation, and as a rational person one couldn’t claim that there are no other explanations beyond what we understand.

There are some miracles out there, which have much evidence for them and are difficult to refute. I would include especially the hosts of Siena (look it up) if you are interested in pursuing that topic.

I am a former agnostic and I had exactly the same questions that you had before I converted… I wanted to know what evidence believers had which convinced them that God existed, so that if He did exist perhaps I would be able to know that He existed as well… I knew that when I was an agnostic that if God really existed and He wanted me to know that He existed, that He could simply do so. I believed that sincerely, and I found myself inexplicably drawn toward the catholic church (I was raised a protestant). I never did nor never have seen a reason that %100 convinced me that the Christian God existed, but somehow one day I simply came to know that He existed without any reason at all and not too long after found myself strongly drawn to joining the church… as I said, if God existed and He wanted me to know that He existed, then He was quite capable of doing so. The light of faith exceeds reason. Faith itself is the proof.

God Bless,

 

[MindOverMatter]

That seems to be a pretty long-winded way of saying “Since I can’t prove it, I am going to assume that causality applies uniformly throughout the universe and throughout time, except of course for this one instance where it benefits my accepted dogma to suspend said assumption.”

How many times are we going to have to tell you? No true Thomist has ever invoked God as a metaphysical cause with out good reason. I am going to explain this to you one time, and if i see you repeat this error again i am going to assume that you’re a trouble maker.

Heres you chance to learn and understand.

1. The principle of causality allows us to gain intelligible information about reality in a manner that is absolutely consistent with logic.

2. We see motion in the universe

3. The only thing that can sufficiently explain the existence of motion and change is an un-moved mover; otherwise motion as a universal whole is left unexplained and unjustified in its motion. The perfect unchanging unmoved mover has to exist in order to explain all that which moves, whether or not the Universe be infinite or finite. If we cannot use “accidents” to ultimately explain the existence of our Universe, the only other possible explanation is the timeless existence of a supreme mind, will and intellect.

Whether the arguement is wrong or right, the concept of an unmoved mover is necessary in so far as giving humanity an intelligible explanation for the existents of motion; God is not some arbitrary assumption that people employ for the fun it. A supreme and perfect will at the root of all beings has absolute explanatory value in terms of causality. In terms of an ultimate explanation for all physical beings, a “super-nature”, that wholly transcends causality time space including all other natural physics and at the same time gives eternal cause to them, makes the best sense of that ancient Question, “why something rather then nothing”. That you do not value the concept of God does not change this fact and the sooner you come to terms with this the better for you.

 

[DavidHume]

The only thing that can sufficiently explain the existence of motion and change is an un-moved mover; otherwise motion as a universal whole is left unexplained and unjustified in its motion.

If there is an unmoved mover, then motion is no longer a universal whole.

Whether the arguement is wrong or right, the concept of an unmoved mover is necessary in so far as giving humanity an intelligible explanation for the existents of motion

In the current cosmological consensus, the big bang can play the role of your “unmoved mover” and it doesn’t need intellect nor will.

A supreme and perfect will at the root of all beings has absolute explanatory value in terms of causality. In terms of an ultimate explanation for all physical beings, a “super-nature”, that wholly transcends causality time space including all other natural physics and at the same time gives eternal cause to them, makes the best sense of that ancient Question, “why something rather then nothing”. That you do not value the concept of God does not change this fact and the sooner you come to terms with this the better for you.

In this case it’s not that I don’t value the concept of God, it’s that I don’t value the question “why something rather than nothing.” “Nothing” is prima facie an impossibility, since I am here. It’s like the question "why is a square rectangular rather than round?

 

[PaulAndrew83]

If there is an unmoved mover, then motion is no longer a universal whole.

I would like to see justification for that claim and then its implications. I don’t think what you say has any effect on Minds statement.

In the current cosmological consensus, the big bang can play the role of your “unmoved mover” and it doesn’t need intellect nor will.

Thats vacuous. The big bang needs explaining too.

In this case it’s not that I don’t value the concept of God, it’s that I don’t value the question “why something rather than nothing.” “Nothing” is prima facie an impossibility, since I am here. It’s like the question "why is a square rectangular rather than round?

Thats a bad analogy. Not valuing a question does not mean there is not an answer. “Nothing” is only an impossibility because we know there is something.

 

[DavidHume]

I would like to see justification for that claim and then its implications. I don’t think what you say has any effect on Minds statement.

It’s quite simple. If there is an “unmoved mover,” then there is at least one thing which cannot be explained by a law of motion. Therefore there is no universal law of motion, since a universal law applies to everything, and yet the law of motion does not apply to the unmoved mover.

So the argument is self defeating – MindOverMatter implies that the motivation for hypothesizing an unmoved mover is that “otherwise motion as a universal whole is left unexplained and unjustified in its motion,” yet the hypothesis itself negates the possibility of “motion as a universal whole,” since it makes an exception for this unmoved mover.

Thats vacuous. The big bang needs explaining too.

The big bang needs no more and no less explanation than any other unmoved mover, including God. If you can ask “what caused the big bang?” then I can ask “what caused God?” and we are at the same impasse that we were before Aquinas entered the picture.

 

[CKNICKERBOCKER]

Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God.
I saw God.
I spoke to Jesus.
I spoke to Mary…
But FIRST, I believed!

 

[Sarpedon]

I believe because I don’t see any epistemological basis for empiricism alone. I have yet to see a coherent explanation of why empiricism has absolute primacy over any other form of knowledge. Furthermore, the accuracy of human perception can only be accepted as a postulate. I see no reason to accept a single very limited postulate and reject all others.

When forms of knowledge other than empiricism are concerned, the truth of Catholicism can be easily determined. When you look at the whole picture, outside of the little empirical box atheists put themselves in, the truth of Catholicism can be clearly seen.

 

[DavidHume]

I believe because I don’t see any epistemological basis for empiricism alone. I have yet to see a coherent explanation of why empiricism has absolute primacy over any other form of knowledge. Furthermore, the accuracy of human perception can only be accepted as a postulate.

Many contemporary empiricists* would agree with you. The idea that knowledge must be based on certainty to be called knowledge has been replaced with fallibilism, the idea that all claimed knowledge could be in error. Peirce, Quine, and Rorty are all good reads.

• One definition of the word “empiricist” might include foundationalism, in which case these philosophers are not empiricists. I use the word “empiricist” to describe someone who values experience over deduction, and verifiable claims over metaphysical ones.

 

[Sarpedon]

Many contemporary empiricists* would agree with you. The idea that knowledge must be based on certainty to be called knowledge has been replaced with fallibilism, the idea that all claimed knowledge could be in error. Peirce, Quine, and Rorty are all good reads.

In that case, why is atheistic empirical knowledge any more reliable than religious nonempirical knowledge?