What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[DavidHume]

God is referred to as a “Living God”, yet God is atemporal.

This thread has become interesting.

That is an interesting observation. I wonder what the significance of the phrase “living God” is, both in modern theology and that of the period following Christ. For example, deceased Roman emperors were venerated by some as gods.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I do not think any sort of observation that could be made, even if it were repeatable, would be sufficient to convince me that God exists.

No amount of evidence, no matter how solid nor how much, would be sufficient to warrant something which would be a universal metaphysical certainty.

Now, it may be possible, within my view, to come up with an argument for God as something (someone) that must be accepted in order to make sense of the world, or of certain parts of the world, as we perceive it, but all that amounts to is the necessity of accepting God for the sake of understanding or accepting consistently something else.

Though I suspect even this is not possible, if such an argument were made, even if it were flawless, this would only establish the importance of accepting God as a formal truth within the mind, for the sake of understanding what we see and consider; it would not be sufficient at all to establish that such a being actually existed apart from the mind.

This discussion is vitiated by being based on a great number of assumptions - the meaning of the term “God” seems to be taken for granted ​

If the question means, “What do you consider proof of [the reality] of God as conceived of within the Judaeo-Catholic Christian tradition, if anything ?” - & ISTM that this is likely to be what is intended by the questioner - I wish it had been made clear at the beginning.

That is a very different question from “What do you consider proof of God, if anything ?”, if the question means: “What do you consider proof of the reality of Divine Being; however that term may be understood ?”

IMHO, God is the only “proof” of God. Reason is not big enough, & its arms are too short. It is contained by that which it is (in effect) asked to contain. It’s useful, but how can reason, which is not transcendent, be capable of proving the reality of the Transcendent One ? God is not man, but transcends all creatures; so cannot be subjected to the investigating intellect - IOW, God is Holy. Not holy, but, “Holy, Holy, Holy” - the hymn of the seraphim (in Isaiah 6), & of the four living creatures who “have no rest by day or by night” in singing this hymn (as seen in Revelation 4), is very relevant to this issue; it’s an obstacle to the venturesomeness of mind that would dissect & scrutinise the Almighty as though He were a specimen on a slide; that is an irreligious approach. No matter how rational it may be - “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet; for the place on which you stand is holy ground” (Exodus 3) is a far better course of action. God cannot be attained, & cannot be known, by argument; but only by Self-disclosure in an encounter between Person & person; which is another reason that reason is not enough (all of which, seems to be one of the lessons of the Book of Job).
the debates in the Book of Job suggest

Another of reason’s limitations is that can it prove anything - it is, in the words of Luther, a whore: it is (so it would seem) not “determined”, so as to be reason only when it points to God: for which reason, the giving of reasons for atheism seems not to be a self-contradicting or incoherent concept. This indeterminacy lets reason goes cavorting with all ideas on equal terms, so that reason lends itself to each & everyone of them: hence those words of Luther; he did not mean it had no value at all for Christians & Christian thought.

Another problem with reason, & with ratiocination generally: it is superficial, & (a related weakness) it is only one way of knowing: the heart does indeed have its reasons, even if they cannot always be “transposed” into forms or categories acceptable to the canons of the reasoning intelligence. To rely on reason can lead to disregard of what our hearts tell us; and sometimes our hearts are more reliable than our reasoning processes. At any rate, to give an uncritical primacy to reason is to risk stultifying other sources of knowledge; whereas they ought to be working together, complementing, & compensating for, each other. To allow any one to exclude the others is to be less than fully human.

(In all this, one is taking some sort of Christian understanding as one’s window on reality - a position which is itself not self-evidently valid.)

 

[DavidHume]

By the way, DH - who says that the non-existence of ‘time’ as we know it is equal to ‘stasis’. Again, you are using “earth-terms” (sorry - I coined a phrase ) and limiting youself extremely, I think. Because we cannot conceive of something understandable in our current language, concepts and terms, does not mean it cannot and does not exist.

I think if you look back on this very same thread, you will see that change and time are very closely linked concepts, metaphysically speaking. Stasis is the absence of change. Without time, how is change possible?

 

[bobzills]

Which means that there is an infinity made up of countable numbers, and is by its nature infinite because of the numbers it contains. That means that if i take one number away, it fails to be infinite.

I can take away one number or an infinite number of numbers from the countable integers and still have an infinite number of integers.
Start: {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,…}
Take away one:
{2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,…} still have an infinite number of integers.
Take away all odd numbers (an infinite number of integers)
{2,4,6,8,10,…} still have an infinite number of integers

 

[RobinSebas]

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.

I have seen a person get healed at a week long prayer retreat. I had heard of many other healings earlier but I had never seen one.

We were all at this retreat and in the middle of it along comes this ambulance with two ladies; the one in her 20s was on a stretcher the other was the mother. They laid her on a bed at the back of the hall. She had lost all her hair but it was her eyes that caught my attention, she looked weak and could barely walk but her eyes told you that she was more than just weak. Every time I passed her by her bed or saw her supported along by her mother, I would pray for a healing for her. All the people at the retreat did too.

Well, at the end of the retreat, when people in the retreat who had had experiences could relate them to us from the stage, along comes this lady and her mother on to the stage. The mother tells us of how her daughter was sick with an unknown disease and she had bought her daughter to this retreat center as a last resort. She told us how grateful she was that Jesus had healed her daughter.

She really didn’t need to tell us her daughter was healed, we knew, and again it was the eyes that told us.

 

[mary1173]

What do YOU consider proof that God does not exist? How could something so marvelous come to be unless there is a God? The universe is not a chaotic structure that just happened to occur, [as some evolutionists would like you to believe]. Everything has its purpose. And for something as complex in structure as a human being, with its geonome and cells that cannot be replicated in any way, that to me suggests a higher power is creating all of the diversity in the world. You cannot create a human from an ape the genetic structure will not allow for it. Unless you had the ability to rearrange the geonomes of apes to somehow be upright and hairless, you’d still have an upright ape. You haveto have specific genetic traits already in place from another totally different animal human in structure, to create another human. You take an ape reproduce it it’s still an ape. Genetics do not change form from one species to another. Therefore God is real, and God DOES exist.

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with much of what you say but your attack on reason is self-contradictory.

Another of reason’s limitations is that **it can prove anything **

 

[toastmachines]

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.

OP, I was raised Lutheran, but until the last couple of years I never really believed. Here is what allowed me to finally believe 100%:

Generally, when someone’s getting ready to die at work (I work in a nursing home) I end up taking care of them and the family. I’ve read about Hospice workers that claim to feel a cold breeze or see someone’s soul go flying around the room once the soul departs from the body. I’ve never experienced either of those things, but I’ve observed a “presence” (for lack of a better term) on a few occasions.

Although the presence is invisible, I can see it working. It has no sound but it pricks my ears. There were no flashing lights or buzzers. It was a simple observation. It was humbling. Meh, my description is inadequate; the whole thing is like a riddle to me. The first time I knew what it was, but the rational part of me said “Oh, you’re just seeing things… stop being weird”. The third time it happened though, by then I figured that was more than enough proof and if everyone thought I was looney tunes because of it, I’d be allright with that.

There was only one other time I observed a similar presence in the same manner; that was when I went to Mass for the first time. I guess the big difference was that I knew that presence was Christ. I assume the presence that shows up after death would be the Holy Spirit.

As far as proof and evidence of God’s existence goes, I personally doubt that he would bother investing any time or effort into sending proof to those who wouldn’t believe it anyways. If you just need a little convincing though, I bet if you ask him he’d be willing to send you some evidence. There will come a day when I will answer for the things I do, same as anyone else, but I especially feel sorry for those who do not believe.

 

[JDaniel]

That’s at least one good reason why your avatar’s religion byline reads “Catholic” while mine reads “atheist.”

DH:

I have enjoyed our discussions and I respect you immensely, however, I think this discussion, between us, may have finally come to an end. You, without doubt, must make your own life/death decisions. I personally believe you have boxed yourself into a corner, with your requirement for open salvation.

Perhaps, in the end, you will understand that the majority do get into heaven, but, some few may not. I think the worst of the worst to their deaths, will be left behind.

As a last word, I would like to say that I don’t think that Hell is actually a “lake of fire”. I think that it is a profound absence from that which we miss so much that it causes pain. Sort of like the pain one has when a loved one is missed, one who has not been seen for some time. The missing-ness and the expectancy can, if you have been through it in your life, be somewhat agonizing. Multiply that times millions, or billions, and that is the “pain” to be suffered.

That missing-ness and expectancy of reuniting with God, after our deaths, is the “pain” we may get to suffer, but, with a major difference: once we become liberated souls we will actually know what we have lost. That will make it much more “painful”. What that reunification is, or how it takes place, I don’t know and can’t conjecture. However, understanding it from this point of view, perhaps takes away the physical conception of the sting from that terrible Lake.

Now, if you can remember an absent but well missed loved one, you know how it can hurt. So, perhaps the hurt is worse, in a way, than the fire from that lake. I may be wrong, but, I think your objection was primarily with the conception of physically, in a sense, burning from inordinate heat. Does this modify your thinking at all?

jd

 

[DavidHume]

Now, if you can remember an absent but well missed loved one, you know how it can hurt. So, perhaps the hurt is worse, in a way, than the fire from that lake. I may be wrong, but, I think your objection was primarily with the conception of physically, in a sense, burning from inordinate heat. Does this modify your thinking at all?

No, my objection is based on the idea of eternal torment without respite, regardless of the form that the torment takes. I don’t think a benevolent God would do that, and I don’t want to worship a malevolent God.

I am glad for our conversation here – though it had a rocky start, I think we came to understand each other much better. The discussion has confirmed my suspicion that even if I were to decide – as Tony Flew did – to be a theist, that there isn’t much place for me in an orthodox Christian congregation. Which is a shame, because I was raised Catholic by loving parents who are still Catholic, accept/respect many Catholic teachings, and still feel “at home” in Catholic congregations generally.

 

[MindOverMatter]

DH:

Now, if you can remember an absent but well missed loved one, you know how it can hurt. So, perhaps the hurt is worse, in a way, than the fire from that lake. I may be wrong, but, I think your objection was primarily with the conception of physically, in a sense, burning from inordinate heat. Does this modify your thinking at all?

jd

This is one of the things that i can’t accept. The idea of a real eternal burning fire makes no sense to me, and it seems to me to be an innocent analogy that was taken completly out of context for the sevice of fear; since some people might not of comprehended what it means to be without God, but we can all imagine what its like to burn. On the other hand, an eternal absense of God is quite a different kettle of horrible tragedies, which fits in more with the concept of Gods Justice.

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks for your response, alacoque. Unfortunately I think that accepting your definition of eternity, “permanent” also has no meaning, since on that plane infinite time and instantaneous have no difference.

Perhaps this is my naivete, but I consider an “afterlife” to have some temporal component, just not one that is related to the material universe.

Indeed, the Nicene Creed uses the phrase “the life of the world to come” – and to me, life implies change. I find the stasis that you seem to be implying quite unappealing. It doesn’t make sense to me as any sort of heaven.

Indeed, consider purgatory. The notion is that there is an extra life beyond this one, where sinners can continue to atone for a limited time, until they are pure enough to enter heaven. So clearly God can “wait” longer than a mere earthly lifetime.

DH:

You have piqued my curiosity again, so, I did some research and found the following:

“But although this clearly is the revealed truth, proclaimed, for example, by Jesus Christ himself, [SUP]1[/SUP] it is a truth bristling with difficulties, which, were it not for the gift of faith, might easily result in doubt. For according to Catholic teaching God is from all eternity changeless, and not changeless inaction, but changeless activity and life. If, then, he is now actually creating, he must have been so from all eternity or there would have been a change in him; and if the result of the changeless creative action is now the world, the same must have been the result from all eternity, or else you would have the same changeless action producing no result for a period and then at some determinate instant beginning to produce a result, which would be absurd and impossible. Nor does it seem to be of any use to try to escape by saying that the world is created by God, not in so far as he is divine power or divine being, but in so far as he is divine will and freedom. For after all, these distinctions that we make between God’s power and his will, as between his justice and his mercy or any other attributes, do not correspond with any real distinctions in him, in whom, apart from the three Divine Persons, everything is supremely one and undifferentiated unity. – [SUP]1[/SUP] John, xvii, 5." - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, 1962, v. 1, p. 197.

The above would certainly imply that there exists in heaven some kind of activity, or life, which you have clearly pointed out must exist. Below is a list of the theorems concerning angelic existence:

“1. Angels have a beginning, but cannot perish; they remain everlastingly the same.
“2. Angels are not subject to the laws of time, but have a duration measure of their own.
“3. Angels are completely superior to space, so that they could never be subject to its laws.
“4. Angelic power on the material world is exerted directly through the will.
“5. Angelic life has two faculties only, intellect and will.
“6. In the sphere of nature an angel cannot err, either in intellect of will.
“7. An angel never goes back on a decision once taken.
“8. The angelic mind starts with the fullness of knowledge, and it is not, like the human mind, subject to gradual development.
“9. An angel may directly influence another created intellect, but he cannot act directly on another created will.
“10. Angels have free will; they are capable of love and hatred.
“11. Angels know material things and individual things.
“12. Angels do not know the future; they do not know the secret thoughts of other rational creatures; they do not know the mysteries of grace, unless such things be revealed freely, either by God or by the other rational creatures.

“These theorems have reference to the natural state of the angel. But the angel has been elevated to the supernatural state, the state of grace, and concerning that state some other principles have currency among theologians.” (These are not taken up here.) – The Teaching of the Catholic Church, 1962, The McMillan Company, v. 1, p. 259.

Both sections clearly show that the “afterlife” does have some sort of “temporal” aspect to it, but, that it is not fully understood. So, in this regard, you and the Church see pretty much eye to eye. Let me know if you would like explanations for any of them.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

This is one of the things that i can’t accept. The idea of a real eternal burning fire makes no sense to me, and it seems to me to be an innocent analogy that was taken completely out of context for the service of fear; since some people might not of comprehended what it means to be without God, but we can all imagine what its like to burn. On the other hand, an eternal absence of God is quite a different kettle of horrible tragedies, which fits in more with the concept of Gods Justice.

Yes, I agree with you. Probably the closest thing the writers of the various books of the compilation called the Bible could come to to describe Hell, was “fire”. We know its feeling even if no burn mark is left behind. But, the absence from God, is that cavernous hole in the middle of us that gives us that ever sinking feeling. It’s not really “pain”, per se, but it is hard to endure. Interestingly, it is also a thing that comes and goes, increases and subsides.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, my objection is based on the idea of eternal torment without respite, regardless of the form that the torment takes. I don’t think a benevolent God would do that, and I don’t want to worship a malevolent God.

I am glad for our conversation here – though it had a rocky start, I think we came to understand each other much better. The discussion has confirmed my suspicion that even if I were to decide – as Tony Flew did – to be a theist, that there isn’t much place for me in an orthodox Christian congregation. Which is a shame, because I was raised Catholic by loving parents who are still Catholic, accept/respect many Catholic teachings, and still feel “at home” in Catholic congregations generally.

DH:

PLEASE do not mistake me for the last word on this subject. I feel fairly confident of my thoughts on this subject, but, I know that there are those - particularly most Priests - with far more affinity with it than me. My conversion back to the Catholic Church officially took place about seven or eight months ago, but, there had been a gradual ascesis up the gradient towards it for a long time before that.

You are on the verge. If someone else can provide you with that one bit of information that pulls it all together, it may clear your way back. I will pray for it to be shown to you.

Thank you for your friendship.

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

;iquidpele

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.

I have been more convinced of God by Mozart’s “Ave Verum Corpus” than by any cerebral argument.

 

[4Horsemen]

This is the time of Mercy (St. Faustina), but God’s Justice will be revealed at the time of death when the soul leaves the body. Fr. James Buckley (Director of Spirituality, Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary) writes in a newsletter about Heaven, Hell and Purgatory. On Hell, he first delineates Catholic teaching (from *Dogmatic Theology,*Vol.4, Fr. F.M. Herve). "The pain of sense is “the positive pain inflicted on the damned by God. . . through (some eternal) instrument of torture.” Christ, Himself, mentions “everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matt. 25:41). The Old Testament, too, has references such as Isaias 66:24). Other references include Daniel 12;2, Mark 9:43,45,47, Paul in II Thes. 1:9 and Apoc. 14:11. Several saints have been known to have seen Hell, the devils and the damned (St. Teresa of Avila, if I remember correctly, and the 3 children of Fatima in 1917 when Our Lady opened the earth in a vision). Others have had devils torment them to try to make them turn away from God. The Cure of Ars comes to mind. Also, Blessed Josepha Menendez from the early 20th century.

The early Church Fathers have written about Hell also. (St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp). The magisterium of the Church has issued several pronouncements on the eternity of Hell. None of these really get into the “why” of Hell. We can conjecture that it is the choice of the damned to be independent of God. They make gods of themselves on earth and refuse to worship and give allegiance to the one true God even at the moment of death they refuse to repent.

Although it is the common doctrine of the Church that the instrument of the pain of sense is a true and corporeal fire, Catholic theologians agree with St. Augustine when he says, “What fire, of what kind and in what part of the world or things it will be, I judge that no one knows except perhaps the one to whom the Spirit reveals it” (City of God 20,16). I’ve read various books on the lives of the saints. It was said by one or another that Hell is like burning sulpher, but a great coldness is pervasive at the same time a burning sensation. Also, there are levels in Hell and varying torments for different sins. The most common reason people go to Hell are “sins of the flesh” according to Blessed Jacinta known from the Fatima apparitions.

Our fire can only work on the soul through the body but that fire can work directly on the soul. Our fire gives light but that fire is ‘involved with horrible darkness and brings most terrifying night.’ (E.M. Herve).

(This may sound wierd, but I’ve gotten up twice to see if something was burning on the stove or in the garage. Active imagination???)

 

[bobzills]

Quote:
“Another of reason’s limitations is that it can prove anything - it is, in the words of Luther, a whore…”

Reason can prove anything? I don’t see how it could be true that reason can prove anything. For example, how would reason prove that Lutherans believe that cats are capable of committing sin and will be punished in the afterlife for their sins?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

No comment, so I’ll hammer home the point. Proof of God, if proof be needed.

youtube.com/watch?v=OY5Bg6Nk6Gc

“Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.” John Keats

 

[DavidHume]

“Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.” John Keats

… famously nonreligious.

Sonnet Written in Disgust of Vulgar Superstition

The church bells toll a melancholy round,
Calling the people to some other prayers,
Some other gloominess, more dreadful cares,
More hearkening to the sermon’s horrid sound.
Surely the mind of man is closely bound
In some black spell; seeing that each one tears
Himself from fireside joys, and Lydian airs,
And converse high of these with glory crown’d.
Still, still they toll, and I should feel a damp,–
A chill as from a tomb, did I not know
That they are dying like an outburnt lamp;
That 'tis their sighing, wailing ere they go
Into oblivion;–that fresh flowers will grow,
And many glories of immortal stamp.

– John Keats

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Any poem written in disgust of anything cannot be beautiful, as this one is not, except perhaps to an atheist contemptuous of religion.

Keats could write some great lines. These are surely not among his best.

At the age of nine he lost his father, his mother before he was fifteen. He died young himself … still disgusted with religon despite his friend’s attempt to secure a deathbed conversion.

Seems strange indeed, that he found disgust so agreeably beautiful.