What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[JDaniel]

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.”

Just as I suspected. You have no idea what First Principles of mobile being are at all, do you? You seem very argumentative. I’m not sure you’re ready for it.

By the way, “long-winded”? I’ve been called a lot if things, but never “long winded.” Usually I am berated for being too succinct.

jd

 

[DavidHume]

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

Well, it doesn’t much matter if the empiricist is an atheist or not.

By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. – Matthew 7:16-18

Some fruits:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electromagnetism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight

As for the fruits of t’other, I can only quote my namesake:

Celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude, and the whole train of monkish virtues; for what reason are they everywhere rejected by men of sense, but because they serve to no manner of purpose; neither advance a man’s fortune in the world, nor render him a more valuable member of society; neither qualify him for the entertainment of company, nor increase his power of self-enjoyment? We observe, on the contrary, that they cross all these desirable ends; stupefy the understanding and harden the heart, obscure the fancy and sour the temper. We justly, therefore, transfer them to the opposite column, and place them in the catalogue of vices…

 

[DavidHume]

Just as I suspected. You have no idea what First Principles of mobile being are at all, do you? You seem very argumentative. I’m not sure you’re ready for it.

I do know what they are, but I also went beyond the undergraduate course in ancient philosophy and don’t consider them particularly relevant. Why would you want to ramble on about four foundational causes when I don’t even consider the efficient cause to be foundational?

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

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.

Given your screen name, I was amused when you mentioned David Hume and revealed that you don’t understand Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. :doh2:

Now it appears that you don’t understand motion. Please explain what you mean by “motion” and how you alone have solved an infinite regress of motion without a first mover.

 

[DavidHume]

Given your screen name, I was amused when you mentioned David Hume and revealed that you don’t understand Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. :doh2:

Oh, you fell for the “those of Cleanthes approach still nearer to the truth” bit, did you?

But this supposes, said DEMEA, that matter can acquire motion, without any voluntary agent or first mover.

And where is the difficulty, replied PHILO, of that supposition? Every event, before experience, is equally difficult and incomprehensible; and every event, after experience, is equally easy and intelligible. Motion, in many instances, from gravity, from elasticity, from electricity, begins in matter, without any known voluntary agent: and to suppose always, in these cases, an unknown voluntary agent, is mere hypothesis; and hypothesis attended with no advantages. The beginning of motion in matter itself is as conceivable a priori as its communication from mind and intelligence.

Besides, why may not motion have been propagated by impulse through all eternity, and the same stock of it, or nearly the same, be still upheld in the universe? As much is lost by the composition of motion, as much is gained by its resolution. And whatever the causes are, the fact is certain, that matter is, and always has been, in continual agitation, as far as human experience or tradition reaches. There is not probably, at present, in the whole universe, one particle of matter at absolute rest.

Now it appears that you don’t understand motion. Please explain what you mean by “motion” and how you alone have solved an infinite regress of motion without a first mover.

Please explain where in the post you quoted I claimed to have solved any such regress. I merely pointed out that “the big bang” and “God” are equally justified answers for the question “what is the first mover?” As did Philo in the dialogue, with a modern interpretation of “the beginning of motion in matter.”

 

[mcgrady42]

St. Thomas Aquinas provided these proofs. I will try to summarize:

1. Motion is only possible if someone puts something in motion.
2. Cause and effect. In our natural world, only something can cause an effect.
3. Possibility and necessity. Nothing cannot produce something, that is absurd. Only something can produce anything else.
4. Something must cause the “goodness” in being.
5. An intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed.

Forgive me, St. Thomas, for attempting to summarize what you so intelligently explained.

More here if you want to dive into the details:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

 

[Leela]

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

But even then, what if God actually did appear to you and asked you to kill your own son as a sacrifce to him as God has been known to do? I would hope that rather than seeing such as proof of God’s existence you would have the good sense to have yourself put into a mental institution.

 

[DavidHume]

But even then, what if God actually did appear to you and asked you to kill your own son as a sacrifce to him as God has been known to do? I would hope that rather than seeing such as proof of God’s existence you would have the good sense to have yourself put into a mental institution.

I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

 

[borodac]

A good book I would reccommend is called Caught Up Into Paradise by Dr. Richard Eby. It’s high point is a near death experience that occurred after he fell from several stories and fractured his head. But aside from that, the majority of the book focuses on the more subtle ways that God spoke to him throughout his life–through small signs and answers to prayer that one can begin to percieve through a close relationship with God.

 

[JKing]

To the OP.

This is the most personal and difficult question you can ever ask a believer. There’s a quote that comes to mind–sorry I don’t remember who said it and I can only paraphrase: To those that believe no proof is necessary and to those that don’t, no proof is possible.

Every devout Christian I know has had some personal experience that has convinced them of the truth of Christian teachings. We call it the Conversion Experience. I’ve done quite a lot of reading on this and noticed that all conversion experiences follow a basic pattern.

Born into faith.
Learned basics from parents/Sunday school/Catholic school nuns.
Never really “got it”.
As teen or young adult drifted into secularism.
Something happens: meet someone of faith, have kids, read a book, hear a talk, experience some tragedy.
Suddenly know that it is all true.
Remember rudimentary faith and decide to do research and learn more.
Explore teachings, seek out others who’ve had similar experiences.

There are many variations on this theme. Some never knew any faith until they experience their tragedy. Some drift out of one faith tradition and find “truth” in another. Some explore many faith traditions and find the fullness of truth in one particular expression of the faith. Some find their way back to the faith of their upbringing. Some never leave at all but experience a profound confirmation of their faith at some point. The last is rare for Catholics these days because of the poor catechesis of the last four decades.

In my case, I read a book in my thirties (“Surprised by Truth”, Patrick Madrid) and it forced me to admit that I’d been taking my faith for granted and I resolved to take it more seriously. I began to learn. Now I’m almost 50, I’ve read and accumulated a library of books that cover one wall in the parlor and I don’t feel like I’ve even begun to scratch the surface. I’ve grown in my prayer life and yet have a long way to go. I go to Mass a few times a week in addition to Sunday, and I feel like there is much more there that I’m not tapping into. I go to confession at least once a month and I am still a pitiful sinner with very little discipline. But the point is that now, at least, I’m on the right track. God’s most beautiful attribute is His Mercy. I count on it.

That’s my experience. No one else will identify with it and it won’t convince anybody. But, without diving into the philisophical melee that makes up the majority of this thread, there are many ways to “prove” that God exists. However, if you are sceptical at every point, then nothing will convince you. What fits best with the way I think is to start with history.

If you accept that Jesus existed–there is enough historical evidence to make this point easy to accept–then he must be either a liar, a lunatic or The Lord. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Jesus existed. He had followers. These followers made amazing and bizarre claims about the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. What did they have to gain by maintaining these claims if they were not true? All but one of the twelve were martyred. None made any worldly gains by their claims. They were hunted and chased all over the world. Something like the first 36 Popes were martyred or died in exile. Just everyday Christians were imprisoned and tortured and executed for three centuries just for following the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, sent to Earth to redeem mankind from sin and death. He could have been lying to his followers. If so, he wasn’t a very good man, was he? He caused the suffering and death of himself and thousands of followers and for what? What did he stand to gain by lying, especially when the flagrum blows started raining down on his back? Maybe he was just whacko. Insane asylums are populated with hundreds of “messiahs”. If that were the case, would he keep it up through the trial, scourging, crowning with thorns, and crucifixion? And what about the resurrection appearances that his followers report? If insanity is your answer it would have to extend to all the people who saw Jesus alive after he was executed. The only possible answer to the biblical accounts is that Jesus was Who he said He was.

Another poster pointed out that Jesus’ appearance matched hundreds of Old Tesament predictions about the coming of-, the life of-, and the death of the messiah.

Then there is the evidence of the Church itself. It was founded by Jesus with a promise that the “Gates of Hell would not prevail”. What other human dynasty, government, organization, or heirarchy has lasted this long? It has outlasted every human institution on Earth despite some of the most despicable people being at all levels of leadership, at one time or another throughout history, perpetrating some of the most evil crimes that humanity has ever known. That alone, in my opinion, is pretty good evidence that God exists and is with the Catholic Church.

But I’ll conclude by repeating that this is a very individual thing. When God touches you, you no longer need proof.

 

[JDaniel]

I do know what they are, but I also went beyond the undergraduate course in ancient philosophy and don’t consider them particularly relevant. Why would you want to ramble on about four foundational causes when I don’t even consider the efficient cause to be foundational?

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. For example, Hume’s description of how morality works (Treatice on Human Nature) I don’t find particularly relevant either.

You, sir, are a product of modernism. Even as a product of modernism, do you not agree that entering a whole science in the middle of it is bound to produce error? How far would Einstein have gotten if not for Newton and Galileo, for example?

At some time, in the future, you and I can compare credentials. I used to teach snobbish, arrogant children like you. Your entire demeanor, since the beginning of your time here on CAF, has you exhibiting mean-spiritedness instead of an earnest desire to give or grow in knowledge. Of all the philosophers, you pick Hume to be your ID. A profound atheist. A man who says we cannot do one step past ourselves. And, he applies this to both practical reason and theoretical reason. It’s a good thing that theoretical scientists didn’t listen. Else how would Newton have postulated his Law of Inertia? We cannot directly experience a place where no resistance or gravity, or friction is extant. Newton took a step away from reality to posit an “ideal” place (in the order of logic) where it might be so.

But, I guess it’s OK for science.

jd

 

[Leela]

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, sent to Earth to redeem mankind from sin and death. He could have been lying to his followers. If so, he wasn’t a very good man, was he? He caused the suffering and death of himself and thousands of followers and for what? What did he stand to gain by lying, especially when the flagrum blows started raining down on his back? Maybe he was just whacko. Insane asylums are populated with hundreds of “messiahs”. If that were the case, would he keep it up through the trial, scourging, crowning with thorns, and crucifixion? And what about the resurrection appearances that his followers report? If insanity is your answer it would have to extend to all the people who saw Jesus alive after he was executed. The only possible answer to the biblical accounts is that Jesus was Who he said He was.

Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? How about Legend? We don’t have to call Jesus a liar or crazy to not believe that Jesus is God. We just have to doubt that Jesus actually said and did some of the things he was said to have said and did.

Considerring that even the gospel accounts disagree about what Jesus said and did, there is good reason to doubt many of the claims you made. For example, only John depicts a Jesus going around claiming to be God.

Another poster pointed out that Jesus’ appearance matched hundreds of Old Tesament predictions about the coming of-, the life of-, and the death of the messiah.

What prophecies? The prophecies normally cited are not ones that actually talk specifically about a mesiah instead of a “righteous one”, and the ones that talk about a messiah are expecting a very different sort of savior. That is why Jews don’t accept Jesus as the messiah that is prophesized.

 

[Alkrod]

A smile or a kind word from my fellow man is all the proof I need

 

[JKing]

Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? How about Legend? We don’t have to call Jesus a liar or crazy to not believe that Jesus is God. We just have to doubt that Jesus actually said and did some of the things he was said to have said and did.

So, is the resurrection just a legend? What advantage did it give to Jesus’ followers to fabricate this? And it was universally believed–in fact if defined Christianity.

Considerring that even the gospel accounts disagree about what Jesus said and did, there is good reason to doubt many of the claims you made. For example, only John depicts a Jesus going around claiming to be God.

I would surely doubt if each of the Gospel accounts were perfectly in sync. The dead give-away that they are lying when police are interviewing multiple witnesses is if their stories match up exactly. Your assertion that John’s Gospel is the only one that asserts Jesus’ divinity is false. All depict miracles, especially the resurrection.

What prophecies? The prophecies normally cited are not ones that actually talk specifically about a mesiah instead of a “righteous one”, and the ones that talk about a messiah are expecting a very different sort of savior. That is why Jews don’t accept Jesus as the messiah that is prophesized.

Try Isaiah’s “Suffering Servant Songs”. Psalm 22–which Jesus actually quoted from the cross. As for the Jews rejecting the Messiah? Really? All twelve apostles were Jews. Paul was a Jew. Paul converted Jews first whenever he went to a new town. Only a small percentage of Jews accepted Christ, true, but even this was prophesied.

It’s very easy to throw flaming darts at any so-called proof of God, but it takes real courage to allow yourself the possibility that it could be true. Like I tried to say in my first post, this works for me and it’s very personal. I didn’t claim that it would convince anyone else. I appreciate you trying to “show me the error of my ways” but, you see, I don’t need proof. I know God exists because I talk to him every day. I see his active participation in my life every day. He’s always right here. He goes with me everywhere. I could no more doubt Him than I could doubt the mailman–even though I don’t see him every day I see the evidence of his existence in my mailbox every day.

God bless you.

 

[Thales]

Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? How about Legend? We don’t have to call Jesus a liar or crazy to not believe that Jesus is God. We just have to doubt that Jesus actually said and did some of the things he was said to have said and did.
.

I was reading another thread about the validty of Jesus and the atheist claims about His story being more legend than actuality. What I find intersting, having read a good deal of mythology, fairytales, and legends, is that these types of stories are typically very obviously legends, where the archetypical characters do amazing things like flying, killing dragons, magic, incredible feats of strength, etc. Jesus certainly does incredible things, but they are predominately healing and what’s even more interesting is the reactions of the people around Him. The onlookers in other myths and legends are for the most part not too impressed when the hero does inhuman things, however the witnesses of Jesus are blown away by the miracles of Jesus. The gospels, though incredible, are in a way very believable as actual events. The point I’m trying to make is that I know of no legends prior to the New Testament, that are quite like it. There might be, I haven’t exhausted every past cultures’ legends, but I personally haven’t read one.

 

[liquidpele]

A smile or a kind word from my fellow man is all the proof I need

So a wagging tail from my dog is proof of a dog god?
To clarify, that was not a serious comment, the thought just seemed funny to me.

 

[Tezza]

*I think faith isn’t quite the same thing as proof. I had faith long before I had proof, and my proof is just God loving me and interacting in my life in powerful (to me) and distinct experiences.

I heard his voice once–well, heard/felt a voice within me. It’s very difficult to describe except that it was audible, and made me jump and look around for a second even though it was coming from within. It was during a time of heartfelt prayer that God asked me a question.

There have been other ways that God has made himself known to me, through answered prayers. They are personal moments that mean a lot to me, but others may not see the significance, especially one who doesn’t believe.

Hope that helps!

Peace,
Teri*

The subconscious is a wonderful thing isn’t it.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up for me. What was I thinking??

Got to run… figured I’d go say a couple of prays for you!

Peace,
Teri

 

[liquidpele]

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. For example, Hume’s description of how morality works (Treatice on Human Nature) I don’t find particularly relevant either.

You, sir, are a product of modernism. Even as a product of modernism, do you not agree that entering a whole science in the middle of it is bound to produce error? How far would Einstein have gotten if not for Newton and Galileo, for example?

At some time, in the future, you and I can compare credentials. I used to teach snobbish, arrogant children like you. Your entire demeanor, since the beginning of your time here on CAF, has you exhibiting mean-spiritedness instead of an earnest desire to give or grow in knowledge. Of all the philosophers, you pick Hume to be your ID. A profound atheist. A man who says we cannot do one step past ourselves. And, he applies this to both practical reason and theoretical reason. It’s a good thing that theoretical scientists didn’t listen. Else how would Newton have postulated his Law of Inertia? We cannot directly experience a place where no resistance or gravity, or friction is extant. Newton took a step away from reality to posit an “ideal” place (in the order of logic) where it might be so.

But, I guess it’s OK for science.

jd

Man… I think you two need a timeout.

 

[DavidHume]

Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. For example, Hume’s description of how morality works (Treatice on Human Nature) I don’t find particularly relevant either.

That’s a fair point, though I quoted it in response to someone who used innate moral sense as justification for objective morality, and objective morality as justification for God.

You, sir, are a product of modernism.

While I don’t personally take that as an insult, it seems to be intended as one – possibly meaningful to anyone familiar with Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

Even as a product of modernism, do you not agree that entering a whole science in the middle of it is bound to produce error?

I disagree. I need not understand nor appreciate Ptolemy’s model of the solar system to do modern astronomy without error.

A man who says we cannot do one step past ourselves. And, he applies this to both practical reason and theoretical reason.

I think you misinterpret Hume, or are attributing more weight to some of his statements than is intended. Neither David Hume nor I share your horror at fallibilism. More recent philosophers have refined ideas about justification in the absence of any foundational principles.

It’s a good thing that theoretical scientists didn’t listen. Else how would Newton have postulated his Law of Inertia? We cannot directly experience a place where no resistance or gravity, or friction is extant. Newton took a step away from reality to posit an “ideal” place (in the order of logic) where it might be so.

One need not imagine an ideal place in order to postulate the law of inertia. Even if one chooses to do so, such imaginings certainly grant the law no weight.

All one needs to do is hypothesize a mathematical relation between the acceleration of an object and the net force acting upon it – in this case one that happens to satisfy 0 net force = 0 acceleration – and verify experimentally that when you increase or reduce the various forces (friction being easier to manipulate than gravity) on an object, that the acceleration of the object changes according to the mathematical model’s prediction.

I assure you that if it weren’t for the suggestion of a law of inertia in existing experiments, Galileo and Newton wouldn’t have bothered.

 

[JRKH]

I have not read through teh answers so forgive me if I repeat…

I’m curious what people consider as proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible.

First of all we would need to establish two things - two commonly agreed points between us for discussion.

1. What consitutes “God”?
2. What constitutes “Proof”?
   Without these two things commonly agreed upon the conversation will simply drift in circles.

Has anyone had what they would consider a miracle happen, seen an angel, seen a person healed by prayer, etc?

I have had two things happen to me that I believe are direct Godly interventions - I won’t attempt to define them beyond that. The first was a Voice that spoke “clearly and quietly” to me even though I was in a noisy place, that gave me an answer to a prayer and great peace. The second, a bit more involved, was another answer to a prayer. While I was considering returning to the Church, I was praying on the matter one morning in bed. My Dear Wife, who was a sleep beside me, lying on her back, suddenly raised the blanket, made teh sign of the cross, and lowered the blanket back down. After that, the answers I sought came easily.
You can take these things however you like.

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.

So we go back to the original statement of needing to agree on the parameters of “God” and “Proof”.
To me - Our existance is a “proof”.
To me - “God” can be called that which exists beyond our ability to understand.

Now whether you, or others, would accept these things is another matter.

Peace
James