What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

[SonSearcher]

There could be some brain neurological explanations for this, i think you mean NDE’s. There are alot of these on youtube, people seeing hell, Jesus, etc. Alot of them dont agree on basic things ,so i dont trust testimonies of people coming back from the dead.

Can you elaborate on your friends testimonies.

I think you state what your issue is by saying " i dont trust testimonies of people."

The reason we know God truly exists is the Historical Jesus. He was here among us. Saying and doing things the entire time. But then again His testimony is of a person who came back from the dead, and you don’t trust in His testimony. So it seems the issue is trust and believing in people, not science.

You seem to be asking a question that is vague and the only answer seems to be vague. The question is too broad. Define what you really mean to question.

 

[catholictiger]

Personally, I’d believe in God if he appeared to me.

what if I explained to you a logical argument and you believed all the premises were true.

 

[Myqyl]

You know, this is so insulting. I am sure you did not intend it to be insulting, but nevertheless it is. The first part is true, no doubt. The problem is the second part. Not just it is absurd, but also it is offensive. How dare anyone make an assumption that non-believers are so stubbornly and willfully blind that they would refuse to accept even the most convincing physical evidence?

I’m sorry you found it offensive… I was not referring to “non-believers” but “dis-believers”. There is a subtly yet profound difference.

Again I apologize for the confusion.

 

[ASimon]

what if I explained to you a logical argument and you believed all the premises were true.

That would work too.

 

[Alterum]

This same question (What would count as absolute proof that God exists?) was asked on another forum, and id thought id ask it on here, basicaly she answers by saying that we can never KNOW if God does or does not exist, because theres always a posibility that some intelligent alien is doing it/pretending to be God. what do u guys think, what would convince YOU that God is real Catholics, how can you be sure sure that God is real/Catholicism is The Truth? How do you know that its not a alien like the woman says.

You’re asking two separate questions.

1. “What would count as absolute proof that God exists?” The answer, of course, depends on the epistemology, semantics, theory of truth, theory of proof, evidential standards – in brief, the context – in which the question is framed. To those who believed (who were absolutely convicted) that only the Messiah could forgive sins and rise from the dead, Christ’s power constituted an absolute proof that He was God. By the same token, when a lover dies for his beloved, the beloved takes this as definitive proof of his love, such demonstration as is impossible from syllogism.

For a skeptic, whose part the woman is playing, there is no absolute proof of anything. Not even Descartes’ cogito should be considered a proof. If it is a deduction, the connection between antecedent and consequent can be doubted. If not, it is not an argument.

If it’s true that one’s standard of proof depends on his epistemology (with only a little irony, I should say that I don’t know how that can be doubted), then a good way to deal with a skeptic is to convince him to stop being one. And a good way of doing that, I think, is simply a series of reductio ad absurdum’s of the skeptic’s own beliefs.

1. Can we ever know if God exists? This question admits of less variation according to epistemological theory because, rather than asking about inference from abstract concepts, it asks about concrete reality. Do people know that God exists? That’s an empirical question to which the answer is undoubtedly an affirmative. It’s also a phenomenological question: what state of mind or character is determined by such certainty? As Newman once said, “Many a man will live and die upon a dogma: no man will be a martyr for a conclusion.”

A little thereafter, he says, “Life is not long enough for a religion of inferences; we shall never have done beginning, if we determine to begin with proof. We shall ever be laying our foundations; we shall turn theology into evidences, and divines into textuaries. We shall never get at our first principles. Resolve to believe nothing, and you must prove your proofs and analyze your elements, sinking farther and farther, and finding ‘in the lowest depth a lower deep,’ till you come to the broad bosom of scepticism. I would rather be bound to defend the reasonableness of assuming that Christianity is true, than to demonstrate a moral governance from the physical world. Life is for action. If we insist on proofs for every thing, we shall never come to action: to act you must assume, and that assumption is faith.”

 

[0thetrooth0]

Now to answer the OP’s question: if god would accept the open invitation to my house, and would be willing to conduct a decent, mutually respectful conversation with me, I would trust my intellect to find out if I am talking to an impostor or the real McCoy. And if the other party would be an impostor, but convincing enough, then what is problem? A good enough god-imitator is just as good as the real thing.

But even if I would be convinced that I am talking to the real god, there would be no compelling reason to either “love” or “worship” that god. (I mention this to enlighten those nincompoops who keep saying that to know god’s existence would limit our free will in any meaningful way).

What if you were born in heaven, wouldent you want to love God because he made you, you will have eternal bliss, wouldent you be grateful to him? you could have been nothing, but your not.

If today God would appear today and tell us to love and worship him, i would do exactly as told. I would want to do what my creator tells me to do. If his an evil God thats another story.

 

[0thetrooth0]

Personally, I’d believe in God if he appeared to me.

The question posed is… how can you KNOW if its God or not, how can you be sure, is it possible to KNOW?

What would do you mean if he appeared to you, what do you expect he says or do? What would be sufficient evidence

 

[Serious]

I’m sorry you found it offensive… I was not referring to “non-believers” but “dis-believers”. There is a subtly yet profound difference.

Again I apologize for the confusion.

Don’t worry about it. I was sure you did not intend it to be offensive. I am just a bit sad that people keep repeating this “slogans” without actually thinking about them.

 

[0thetrooth0]

I think you state what your issue is by saying " i dont trust testimonies of people."

The reason we know God truly exists is the Historical Jesus. He was here among us. Saying and doing things the entire time. But then again His testimony is of a person who came back from the dead, and you don’t trust in His testimony. So it seems the issue is trust and believing in people, not science.

You seem to be asking a question that is vague and the only answer seems to be vague. The question is too broad. Define what you really mean to question.

We cant trust in the Bible that much because some authors of some books are unknown, and after all, men tend to corrupt things/change it to fit their own agendas.

Religion if not created, heavily influenced by men.

2 things: we dont know if people have certain agendas when they tell a testimony or if they have some mental problem/placebo/old age/ other brain things we dont know about etc and there are things we cant yet explained, we should not always put God in the equation/God of the gaps.

 

[Serious]

What if you were born in heaven, wouldent you want to love God because he made you, you will have eternal bliss, wouldent you be grateful to him? you could have been nothing, but your not.

I don’t know, but I don’t think so. It is my firm opinion that the creator always has an obligation to the created one, and not the other way around.

If today God would appear today and tell us to love and worship him, i would do exactly as told. I would want to do what my creator tells me to do. If his an evil God thats another story.

The god, as described in the bible and in the arguments of apologists is either indifferent, or downright evil (more likely indifferent than evil, I would say). But most certainly not someone who would deserve love or even respect (much less worship).

 

[0thetrooth0]

what if I explained to you a logical argument and you believed all the premises were true.

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

 

[vsedriver]

wait for the scientific literates to answer this, i dont know too much about this, but i think it is possible.

you can’t get a 1 from a 0.

 

[Qoeleth]

The proof the God, the Invisible Father, ‘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 Jesus exists is obvious- since we meet His brothers and sisters every day, in the face of the poor, the sick, the imprisoned.

 

[vsedriver]

I think the definitive proof is having folks that we know have died, coming back from the dead and verifying that one, there is a life after death and two, that there is a being that has control of the universe.

There are a bunch of folks who have had this experience, including some friends who I’ve known. So for me, it is a done deal, God is what He claims to be.

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.”

 

[SonSearcher]

We cant trust in the Bible that much because some authors of some books are unknown, and after all, men tend to corrupt things/change it to fit their own agendas.

Religion if not created, heavily influenced by men.

2 things: we dont know if people have certain agendas when they tell a testimony or if they have some mental problem/placebo/old age/ other brain things we dont know about etc and there are things we cant yet explained, we should not always put God in the equation/God of the gaps.

But God uses man. Regardless if an epistle or two were written by six different people. You are right that we corrupt our own, but when God wants a book written no man can write whatever he wants.

and in speaking of an agenda it comes to truth. God exists is Truth. You saying men corrupt, therefore whatever they have affected, created, or influenced is corrupted is not truthful. And for the exact reason that God is everything Gaps and all.

 

[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 we know that Christ rose from the dead, that we believe !! otherwise, what’s the point ?

 

[shoe]

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

 

[Nicko]

The proof the God, the Invisible Father, ‘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 Jesus exists is obvious- since we meet His brothers and sisters every day, in the face of the poor, the sick, the imprisoned.

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?

 

[empther]

The bottom line…

Some believe in God despite not having access to or understanding the logic of any proof.

Some don’t believe in God despite having the proof staring in their face because they reject it.

It all comes down to personal choice.
Reason doesn’t always overrule emotion. :bigyikes:
The opposite is more common. :sad_bye: :bighanky:

 

[grannymh]

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.

1.What you are describing is the capability of a person to think beyond the natural environment. If one can swing a bat, it doesn’t make any difference if one hits a baseball or a watermelon, the first important thing is that the person has the capability to swing a bat.

2.The second important thing is that the person, with the capability to swing a bat, also knows the difference between a baseball and a watermelon and therefore can choose to swing at either or not swing.

3.The third important thing is that the person, with the capability to swing a bat, with the ability to choose to swing or not, also knows that a baseball belongs in a game and that the watermelon belongs on a plate ready to be eaten.

4.The fourth important thing is that the person described above also knows that the baseball is not intended as nourishment and hopefully she or he will seek more appropriate food than a watermelon.

The absolute proof that God exists needs to come from within the person who is looking for proof of God. The criteria is not the perfection of the proof; the criteria is that the proof works for that individual. The four points presented above could serve as a prime analogy to help someone reason to the existence of God.

I realize that I am answering post 7 and thus there are a lot of posts I haven’t read. However, point 1 has been rolling between my ears as an answer to the imagination of aliens and pink unicorns which can be a flaw when it comes to imagining or thinking about God.

I have no clue if any of the four points will really work because I am depending on the other person to spot what may be analogous in his or her search for a proof for God’s existence which is similar to the prime analogy above.