What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[JDaniel]

Man… I think you two need a timeout.

OK. I’m heading for my corner.

jd

 

[Leela]

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.

Yes, I think that the resurrrection is a legend. There may very well have been an empty tomb. In fact Mark’s gospel ends at the point of finding one. But the most likely explanation for an empty tomb is not that Jesus was risen from the dead. In fact, no matter how small a proability you would attach to Jesus’ followers making up the story, it would still be more likely than the resurrection since miracles are by definition the least likely explanation for the facts. I think that some of his followers probably had visions of some sort and such stories were exaggerated in the retelling over time.

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.

Right. If they all said the exact same thing in the same way, we would have one source rather than four. In fact, because Matthew and Luke have some content that is exactly that of Mark, it is believed by scholars that they both used Mark as a source and since they both share material not found in Mark, they also believe that there was another source that they both used but that we do not have anymore.

But what do we do with the discrepencies between the accounts?

Your assertion that John’s Gospel is the only one that asserts Jesus’ divinity is false. All depict miracles, especially the resurrection.

It’s not about miracles. There are lots of miracles performed by others in the Bible. For exmaple, Moses was not thought to be divine. Where do the other gospels say that Jesus is God?

Try Isaiah’s “Suffering Servant Songs”. Psalm 22–which Jesus actually quoted from the cross.

This Psalm says nothing that is prophecy of a messiah.

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.

All I meant was, that is why even today Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah. Some Jews have converted and still convert to Christianity.

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.

It is possible that it is all true–at the least the parts of the gospels that don’t contradict other gospels. I don’t see why courage has anything to do with saying so.

Best,
Leela

 

[JKing]

It is possible that it is all true–at the least the parts of the gospels that don’t contradict other gospels. I don’t see why courage has anything to do with saying so.

Best,
Leela

The apparent contradictions have been explained many times. A simple search on Catholic.com would yield a bunch of reading material, I bet.

Of course it requires great courage. It could lead you out of your comfort zone. Whatever you do, never pray “Just in case you exist, Lord…” it could be the beginning of the end of atheism/agnosticism.

 

[trdchubi]

The 14th of May 1948, when the State of Israel was formally established,on the land where, in antiquity, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had once been.

This is the day when God prove Himself right by fulfilling the prophesy of the Return of His Beloved Nation to their ancestral lands:

14 I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. 15 I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted

from the land I have given them," says the LORD your God. Amos 9:14-15

43 So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. 44 The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD handed all their enemies over to them

. 45 Not one of all the LORD’s good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled. Joshua 21:43-45 This is the same God who stood against the invading army, that started the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, hours after Israel’s declaration of independence.

The arab forces were significantly larger than Israel’s fledgling army and were better equipped. But inspite of this, God delivered Israel its victory. Giving the Jewish people hope after their gruesome ordeals—Hope on a God who fulfills prophesies and keeps covenants.

The statehood of Israel is a modern miracle. A sign for people to believe on a God who, when He wills it, is faithful to complete it.

 

[randirhoades]

There are wonderful responses for this question. I also agree that through faith, experiences, and through knowledge proves the existance of God. If in doubt, we can always pray to give us faith to believe in Him.

For me, the most singular and affirmation that God exists is when my kids go and come home safe, from Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan.

Blessings♫♪

 

[Leela]

For me, the most singular and affirmation that God exists is when my kids go and come home safe, from Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan.

What does it mean when kids don’t come home from those places?

 

[JKing]

What does it mean when kids don’t come home from those places?

To answer this we have to talk about another of God’s beautiful attributes: Providence. (In other words, it’s his will. He will make a greater good come out of it.) But that’s another thread.

 

[trdchubi]

What does it mean when kids don’t come home from those places?

Perhaps you forgot to pray “specifically” for their safety in the shadow of the valley of death. God answers prayers:thumbsup: specially when you clearly know what you’re asking for.

 

[liquidpele]

Perhaps you forgot to pray “specifically” for their safety in the shadow of the valley of death. God answers prayers:thumbsup: specially when you clearly know what you’re asking for.

Blue text… very annoying…

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Thank you.

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.

You are correct, it was not meant as one. It was meant as an “alas”.

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

Nevertheless, modern astronomy presupposes Ptolemy. And, you must appreciate the precursors of Einstein, at the time of the advancement of his laws of mass, energy, and Relativity.

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.

My interpretations are in alignment with many current philosophers. So, at least I’m not alone.

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.

But that’s not what I asked. And, Newton did. See the following…

“Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

“Projectiles continue in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts by their cohesion are continually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in freer space, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time.” (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)

Obviously, since there existed no place where he could perform experiments that would prove his theory, he had no choice but to postulate what theoretically takes place as if in an “idealized” environment. Thus, he qualified his axiom no less than three times.

jd

 

[DavidHume]

Nevertheless, modern astronomy presupposes Ptolemy.

What exactly do you mean by “presupposes” here?

My interpretations are in alignment with many current philosophers. So, at least I’m not alone.

I can grant you this. But you said “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.”

To be precise, Hume does not say we cannot do one step past ourselves. He merely rejects the possibility of infallible knowledge from such attempts.

At this point, it would be very allowable for us to stop our philosophical researches. In most questions we can never make a single step further; and in all questions we must terminate here at last, after our most restless and curious enquiries. But still our curiosity will be pardonable, perhaps commendable, if it carry us on to still farther researches, and make us examine more accurately the nature of this belief, and of the customary conjunction, whence it is derived. By this means we may meet with some explications and analogies that will give satisfaction; at least to such as love the abstract sciences, and can be entertained with speculations, which, however accurate, may still retain a degree of doubt and uncertainty.

And as I said, I don’t consider fallibilism to be as horrific as you apparently do.

But that’s not what I asked. And, Newton did. See the following…

“Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

“Projectiles continue in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A top, whose parts by their cohesion are continually drawn aside from rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting with less resistance in freer space, preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a much longer time.” (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)

“So far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air” and “impelled downward by the force of gravity” are simply a restatement of the fact that there are a multitude of forces on an object, all with varying direction and magnitude. Nowhere does he evoke the concept of an imaginary universe wherein these forces do not exist, nor is this concept useful in understanding the theory. He rightly points out that as the forces considered “resistance” decrease, the deceleration also decreases.

Aside from the general arithmetic claim that changes in acceleration are in proportion to the strength of external forces (easily verified), the law of inertia establishes the frame of reference for the other laws of mechanics, all of which have ample experimental evidence supporting them in this context, and none of which operate without the frame of reference established by the law of inertia. Neither I nor David Hume would have any objection to this legitimate and useful application of an axiom for a mathematical theory to help predict and explain experimental results.

There are some causes, which are entirely uniform and constant in producing a particular effect; and no instance has ever yet been found of any failure or irregularity in their operation. Fire has always burned, and water suffocated every human creature: The production of motion by impulse and gravity is an universal law, which has hitherto admitted of no exception. But there are other causes, which have been found more irregular and uncertain… where different effects have been found to follow from causes, which are to appearance exactly similar, all these various effects must occur to the mind in transferring the past to the future, and enter into our consideration, when we determine the probability of the event. Though we give the preference to that which has been found most usual, and believe that this effect will exist, we must not overlook the other effects, but must assign to each of them a particular weight and authority, in proportion as we have found it to be more or less frequent.

Moreover, the passage from Newton is a summary of a single axiom. The actual theory is given by the equation for the second law of motion. This equation and its experimental confirmation are what provides the first law of motion with its justification. Without the second law, and more importantly, without the experimental confirmations of the first and second laws, Newton would indeed deserve to be “committed to the flames” as Hume advocates for other writers.

Obviously, since there existed no place where he could perform experiments that would prove his theory, he had no choice but to postulate what theoretically takes place as if in an “idealized” environment. Thus, he qualified his axiom no less than three times.

You are almost certainly correct about Newton’s thoughts when developing and describing his theory – particularly regarding the ontological status of his laws of motion – but sharing his state of mind is certainly not essential to the useful application of his science.

 

[1holycatholic]

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

Please define motion.

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.”

You seem unaware that Hume’s Dialogues on Natural Religion is a parade of straw men arguments. Apparently your understanding of motion is derived from Hume’s who either doesn’t understand it, or is misrepresenting it in order to craft an argument that he can win.

If you reject the existence of God you have to have solved the problem of infinite regress. Saying “The Big Bang” is the prime mover is an irrational non-answer.

 

[DavidHume]

Saying “The Big Bang” is the prime mover is an irrational non-answer.

What grounds do you have to make that claim?

 

[1holycatholic]

What grounds do you have to make that claim?

Define motion.

 

[DavidHume]

Define motion.

Change in relative position.

(Were you expecting “potency-in-act?”)

Now, please explain why Aquinas’s conclusion is more justified than either of the following conclusions, even accepting the premise that causality is uniform and yet does not extend infinitely.

• The universe is uncaused. (Explain why it is tenable to believe that God is uncaused and untenable to believe that the universe is uncaused.)
• The universe is self-caused. (Explain why it is tenable to believe that God is uncaused and untenable to believe that something can be self-caused.)

edit: and I hope it’s obvious why the universe can easily stand in for God as the “necessary being.”

 

[1holycatholic]

Change in relative position.

(Were you expecting “potency-in-act?”)

Explain “potency-in-act.”

Now, please explain why Aquinas’s conclusion is more justified than either of the following conclusions, even accepting the premise that causality is uniform and yet does not extend infinitely.

• The universe is uncaused. (Explain why it is tenable to believe that God is uncaused and untenable to believe that the universe is uncaused.)

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
If you have a new solution to the problem of infinite regress please post it here.

• The universe is self-caused. (Explain why it is tenable to believe that God is uncaused and untenable to believe that something can be self-caused.)

edit: and I hope it’s obvious why the universe can easily stand in for God as the “necessary being.”

ex nihilo nihil fit

 

[Alkrod]

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.

Perhaps not of a doggy god, but sure. It’s a bit nonsensical and not enough to convince anyone but I’m satisfied

 

[JesuisSean]

What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

Answer: Contact

A mind that is huge enough to create a four dimensional structure, is beyond even that.

Once you make contact, you will have to be exposed to this higher plane from multiple new angles day after day for years just to give you a hint of an understanding of what it is that you have encountered.

After that, no one will believe a word that you have to say of it, for what you now know of is so far beyond the comprehension of the others that to them it is simply NOT.

 

[Alkrod]

What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

Answer: Contact

A mind that is huge enough to create a four dimensional structure, is beyond even that.

Once you make contact, you will have to be exposed to this higher plane from multiple new angles day after day for years just to give you a hint of an understanding of what it is that you have encountered.

After that, no one will believe a word that you have to say of it, for what you now know of is so far beyond the comprehension of the others that to them it is simply NOT.

I hear you.

 

[jimm55]

I have been brought up to believe, so it is easy I suppose. I think the best proof I got was when I got to know a spiritual healer in Dublin. He says his work is done through the Holy Spirit. He can prove that there is a an afterlife at any rate. I don’t know if that proves that there is a God, or not. I does, to me I think.