What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

[catholictiger]

For me, this does not suffice. There are some logical arguments for God out there, that do make sense, just bcause something makes sense does not mean its true, we are just begining to understand this universe, look into all that quantum stuff, that stuff is beyond conceptualization, no matter what you can say, you still cant prove a God, i dont want scientific proof i dont think that would work with God, we need metaphisical. etc

we need to feel God like we feel air, we know air is real because we feel it, God cud make us all have a mystical experience n then we wud know God is indeed real

even if all the premises are true and it is logical?

why would this be the case.

we aren’t talking about sense making we are talking about something being true. Making sense and truthfulness are different. You can disprove something that only makes sense but you can’t disprove something that is true.

 

[Nicko]

I think that a believer in God could give all kinds of evidence that would “count as absolute proof that God exists,” such as entropy, causality, and design, to name just a few; however, unbelievers (atheists) generally will not acknowledge them, since they have a presupposition that is diametrically opposed to the things of God. Even if God suddenly made His presence known to them with many miracles, they would call it an hallucination and blame indigestion.
Here’s a link to Peter Kreeft’s Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God.
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

Okay.

The first nineteen of those arguments either rest upon unfounded premises, have a conclusion that does not follow from their premises, or - most frequently - both. Furthermore, none of these argue for a God who wrote - or even inspired - the Bible, who arranged for His Son to be born in Palestine, or that the death of said Son has any redemptive qualities for humanity. So I don’t really see how they would argue for Christianity even if they worked.

Pascal’s Wager is a special case. It is not actually an argument for the existence of God, but rather an argument that we should believe that God exists because it is our best bet. I cannot imagine any non-stupid God being impressed by someone who bets on His existence as if backing a horse. Secondly, the wager assumes that the choices available are restricted to atheism or Christianity. Given the vast number of incompatible faiths available, the Christian is in no better a position than the atheist. There is even a version of Pascal’s Wager - devised by Dr Richard Carrier, a historian - that argues that we have just as much reason to suppose only nonbelievers go to Heaven.

Look, if you have faith, why do you feel it necessary to provide further reasons? If your belief that God exists were based on reason, then surely you would have no faith?

 

[billcu1]

explain to me how something can come from nothing.

I think there is a misunderstanding especially in christianity of what “nothing” is. Nothing is defined relatively to something. We were and still are out the somewhere “nothing” but that means as opposed to “something” that we are now. That does not mean some type of consciousness didn’t exist. Nothing doesn’t necessarily mean “nothing”. Just a change to something.

HTH

Bill

 

[empther]

The first nineteen of those arguments either rest upon unfounded premises, have a conclusion that does not follow from their premises, or - most frequently - both.

In other words,
no proof will satisfy the A-team, because they don’t want a proof. They don’t want God.

And that sums it up!

 

[grannymh]

I think there is a misunderstanding especially in christianity of what “nothing” is. Nothing is defined relatively to something. We were and still are out the somewhere “nothing” but that means as opposed to “something” that we are now. That does not mean some type of consciousness didn’t exist. Nothing doesn’t necessarily mean “nothing”. Just a change to something.

HTH

Bill

Philosophically, nothing means “not a thing”. A change from any kind of thing to something is not creating a new something since an original thing already existed. That is a tongue twister for sure. God is a Creator which means He created not changed a thing already in existence. God created from non-existence to existence.

 

[Nicko]

In other words,
no proof will satisfy the A-team, because they don’t want a proof. They don’t want God.

And that sums it up!

How did you get that out of what I posted?

If you think that one of those twenty arguments has both demonstrably true premises and a conclusion that follows from those premises, could you please point out which one so that we can discuss it? I am certainly not infallible and could well have made a mistake.

 

[Nat682]

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote five logical proofs for the existence of God. See enwp.org/Quinque_viae

 

[shoe]

In other words,
no proof will satisfy the A-team, because they don’t want a proof. They don’t want God.

And that sums it up!

Atheists that deny the existence of God a priori seem to me to place conditions on logic that are both unreasonable and illogical. The evidence for the existence of God is there in plain view for them to see; but since the nonexistence of God is their presupposition, the objectivity to recognize and to examine that evidence is also nonexistent.

 

[Nicko]

Atheists that deny the existence of God a priori seem to me to place conditions on logic that are both unreasonable and illogical.

What exactly are these conditions that you claim that I place on logic?

The evidence for the existence of God is there in plain view for them to see…

It would be nice if you cited some.

… but since the nonexistence of God is their presupposition …

This is incorrect.

… the objectivity to recognize and to examine that evidence is also nonexistent.

So if I started a proof of the existence of God by assuming that God exists - a formal logical fallacy known as petitio principii, or “begging the question” - then I would be behaving with “objectivity” in your view?

I’m sorry, but this seems to me to be objectivity’s opposite.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Absolute proof? Meeting God. Or meeting the devil. Take your pick.

 

[wcknight]

Luke 16:29 Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets, let them listen to them.”

30 The rich man replied, “Ah no, father Abraham, but if someone comes to them from the dead, they will repent.”

31 Then Abraham said to him, “If they will not listen either to Moses or to the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead.”

BUT it is precisely because Jesus did rise from the dead that we believe. Otherwise IF Jesus did not rise what is the point of our religion. He did so to prove that He is God and that there is life after death.

 

[Qoeleth]

The proof the Allah, the Almighty and Incomparable, ‘exists’ is that we do not see Him, that there is no evidence. Yet, there is still a sense of the transcendent in the human heart, yearning for something beyond the world of appearances.

The fact that the His Prophet exists is obvious- since we meet His brothers and sisters every day, in the face of the poor, the sick, the imprisoned.

Does this make you want to convert to Islam? No?

As a Catholic, I naturally already believe that Allah/God ‘exists’.

I am not sure why you describe the poor, the sick the imprisoned as being manifestations of the Prophet Mohammed- as far as I am aware, this is a specifically Christian idea (cf. Matt 25). But of course, I believe that Mohammed existed.

I do not understand your point. Christians and Muslims believe in the same God- so arguments advanced for the ‘existence’ of the One, Invisible God, the Merciful, the Compassionate apply equally in Christianity as in Islam, without implying any contradiction.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I think this statement is flawed. We can also think or imagine aliens, but that does not mean they are. As time goes on people think about alot of concepts, but it doesnt make them true.

Remember that those aliens have parts on things on earth, heard of a lion, legs of a horse, ears of a bat, and so on.

Not with God.
God is Infinite: where is the Infinite on Earth.
God is the synthesis of contraries: life and death, positive and negative, good and bad, to be and not to be: where do you find that here?

 

[Nicko]

As a Catholic, I naturally already believe that Allah/God ‘exists’.

I am not sure why you describe the poor, the sick the imprisoned as being manifestations of the Prophet Mohammed- as far as I am aware, this is a specifically Christian idea (cf. Matt 25). But of course, I believe that Mohammed existed.

I do not understand your point. Christians and Muslims believe in the same God- so arguments advanced for the ‘existence’ of the One, Invisible God, the Merciful, the Compassionate apply equally in Christianity as in Islam, without implying any contradiction.

Nice dodge.

The point of my post was that your argument could be used to justify any faith with only minimal substitution of terms.

Christianity and Islam are, despite your efforts in the direction of ecumenicism, incompatible faiths. Islam recognises Jesus only as a prophet, and secondary to Muhammed.

 

[grannymh]

Nice dodge.

The point of my post was that your argument could be used to justify any faith with only minimal substitution of terms.

The point is not any faith in anything; the real point is that humans have the capability to think of something beyond one’s natural environment. Go back to the dawn of human history. What do you find in oral stories? Explanations of what? Describe the talent of shamans.

 

[Myqyl]

Nice dodge.

The point of my post was that your argument could be used to justify any faith with only minimal substitution of terms.

Christianity and Islam are, despite your efforts in the direction of ecumenicism, incompatible faiths. Islam recognises Jesus only as a prophet, and secondary to Muhammed.

Actually this thread concerns the “existance” of God, not the “nature” of God. That Christianity and Islam differ on the nature of God is absolutely correct. That both religions believe in the existance of the God of Abraham is an indisputable fact.

What your post fails to address is that the other poster’s argument indeed does justify faith. The nature of that faith is a topic for another thread.

God bless

 

[0thetrooth0]

I think that a believer in God could give all kinds of evidence that would “count as absolute proof that God exists,” such as entropy, causality, and design, to name just a few; however, unbelievers (atheists) generally will not acknowledge them, since they have a presupposition that is diametrically opposed to the things of God. Even if God suddenly made His presence known to them with many miracles, they would call it an hallucination and blame indigestion.
Here’s a link to Peter Kreeft’s Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God.
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

I would believe in God, if i saw some big miracles like the earth moving or be able to fly in galaxy for some time or have a mystical experience , and if i saw these things hapening to the rest of humanity so i can be sure im not halucinating or something, i obviusly woudent KNOW its God but i would definetely have faith,

the fact of the matter is that neither believers or unbelievers can know know the truth, believers expcet atheists agnostics etc to have faith in God, but some of them cant because they want more proof/miracles because they know God can do a much better job at making his presence known to us.

 

[SonSearcher]

I would believe in God, if i saw some big miracles like the earth moving or be able to fly in galaxy for some time or have a mystical experience , and if i saw these things hapening to the rest of humanity so i can be sure im not halucinating or something, i obviusly woudent KNOW its God but i would definetely have faith,

the fact of the matter is that neither believers or unbelievers can know know the truth, believers expcet atheists agnostics etc to have faith in God, but some of them cant because they want more proof/miracles because they know God can do a much better job at making his presence known to us.

Atheists and agnostics should be very humble people who concern themselves with no religion at all. But most times they are too concerned with proving believers wrong. Instead of just accepting their place as a non-believer they seek out believers and try to change their mind.

This leads me to think that some of these folks must want to find God. The reason they seek us out to prove us wrong is to find the proof of existence. I think no human on earth can satisfactorily answer the question that was posed by the OP if he does not want to accept the undeniable Truth of the existence of God.

They say they want miracles, already happened. They want it in written form, point 'em to Aquinas. They want to see a true Christian, we shed light on the Saints in no particular order. Whatever we do isn’t enough. It is God’s call which will finally make the paradigm shift whole. Because that is what it is. A shift in the whole view of every aspect of human existence.

So we can argue until the Earth folds up like a scroll, or we can just pray for them. I prefer prayer. It is the single thing that will change the world.

 

[SonSearcher]

I would believe in God, if i saw some big miracles like the earth moving or be able to fly in galaxy for some time or have a mystical experience , and if i saw these things hapening to the rest of humanity so i can be sure im not halucinating or something, i obviusly woudent KNOW its God but i would definetely have faith,

the fact of the matter is that neither believers or unbelievers can know know the truth, believers expcet atheists agnostics etc to have faith in God, but some of them cant because they want more proof/miracles because they know God can do a much better job at making his presence known to us.

Truth Seeker/Leaker

what is a truth seeker/leaker?

 

[0thetrooth0]

In other words,
no proof will satisfy the A-team, because they don’t want a proof. They don’t want God.

And that sums it up!

CATHOLICS LISTEN AND LISTEN GOOD

i could be described as being more or less in the A-team, i do wish there was proof, if given the choice i would prefer a loving personal God that rewards over being a product of random chance of luck or big bang, etc etc.

Having said that, we look at the world universe stars etc, its all some amazing stuff, obviosly we humans cant even come close to producing someting like that, i can only be in awe when i observe the grass, stars , sun, clouds oceans, etc all i can say is wow, whatever whoever did this is powerful,

lets say a being aka God did this, if he wants us to believe in his existence or do what he says, he has to show HIMSELF to us, we have a intelligent brain for a REASON, humans are not creatures that just believe in something without solid evidence, (obviously alot of people are the complete opposite of this but thats another story)

we only do things because we get something out of it, lets be honest with ourselves, we either get fun or happiness or a future reward out of it,

if God exists and his a loving and good God, he would make his existence known to us in the best possible way, the reality/world we live in does not reflect a good and caring God,
if he wants us to obey and know he exists he would speak to us directly or send a angel to speak to us on his behalf, what we have today is just other humans telling us who God is, what he wants from us. etc

if a personal God exists he would talk to us, we would be in heaven instead of this planet, in order for us to appreciate heaven he should send us all to hell for a certain amount of time so we can really appreciate heaven.

if God were to do loads of miracles and do everything we want him to do fo us in order for us to believe he exists i think majority of humans would believe in him, i know i would, lets say were on earth right, so God does all these things, now theres probably gon be people who refuse to believe in him and others who say this is one big matrix a alien teenager created. we cant know for sure its a alien or if its God all we know is we do certain things and will be happy forever, thats all that matter, if were in the real heaven or a created heaven by a alien, who cares? will never KNOW what is the truth, we wud have to accept that we cant know the truth and just look at the glass half full,

the nice thing for God to so is to appear to us, now obviously we humans would know theres a God, the only thing tha shud change is that God tests us even harder than before or makes us suffer more so we can be wortyh of heaven, the difrence with this scenario and the world we live in today is that in my scenario we would go through all bunch of hardships here on earth but we nwe die we wud KNOW will go to heaven, in the world we live in alot of peeple are doing alot of good and going through alot of hardships all so they can go to heaven possibly. but they DONT know if heaven, God, etc even exist.