What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

[Gaber]

…Just as footprints on a sandy beach are proof enough that a person had previously walked along the beach (or else that another entity had faked the footprints), or that a magnificent, working watch is proof that someone made the watch, why is it not enough that our universe exists, works perfectly, and can sustain us all, to prove a Creator God?

This is a good point. The problem is, that for many many people, it is simply evidence that something happened, but not that someone did something. And that is a stance taken even by many who still claim to know that there is a God by other than the "means’ of simple faith.

 

[tarboy]

George Romero style?

my dead relatives coming back to life.

 

[David_Castlen]

my dead relatives coming back to life.

Well, if my dead relative came back to life it would prove to me there is a hell.

 

[Boojie]

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. Here is her answer:

"Again, a new contemporary source referring to Jesus would only support his existence, not his identity nor the existence of a god. So that wouldn’t do it either.

Same goes for a document written by Jesus himself, EVEN IF it could ever be shown to be genuinely by him, which it almost certainly couldn’t.

As for your other examples. Proof that we were created, for instance. Well, for starters, what might such proof possibly look like? It is certainly conceivable that we would find something that would challenge our current understanding, but how would that prove a creator rather than simply flag up another question to which we don’t currently have an answer? The lack of an answer for something doesn’t have to mean that Goddidit!

In any case, even if there WERE something that pointed incontrovertibly towards a creator, why should that mean it was a god who did the creating? Why couldn’t it be a super-intelligent alien civilisation that did it? For the record, I am not for one moment suggesting the existence of a super-intelligent alien civilisation, merely pointing out that God is not the default explanation!

God speaking to me personally? Well, we already know that the brain is very suggestible and that it can create very powerful illusions, even when not under the influence of drugs. So no, that wouldn’t be reliable evidence either. Besides, who’s to say that, if there WERE a real voice, it would have to be a god and not that super-intelligent alien again?

What might be evidence? Well, if prayer were consistently shown to work, that would get me thinking. Especially if, say, Christian prayers were always answered but Islamic/Hindu/Jain prayers were not. (Though even so, it could still just be a super-intelligent alien civilisation having some fun at our expense.) In reality, every properly conducted study has shown that prayer does NOT work – there is no correlation between prayer and outcomes.

Perhaps if this supposed God were to tell us something that we did not already know and which we could then test for ourselves and see that it was true: a cure for some currently totally incurable disease, for instance. (Carl Sagan wrote amusingly of the way alleged messages from God or aliens are invariably of the banal variety: ‘Be kind to one another’, ‘War is bad’; and never anything IMPRESSIVE, such as how to cure cancer or a comprehensible explanation of quantum mechanics or proof of Goedel’s Theorem.) But this, too, would only be evidence of a superior intelligence, and it could just as easily be those super-intelligent aliens again.

Actually, that isn’t true. It would be FAR MORE LIKELY to be super-intelligent aliens than God. Why? Because we know of natural processes by which intelligence forms on Earth (i.e. as a result of evolution by natural selection), and it therefore wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that something either identical or very similar to evolution by natural selection had been at work on another planet in this vast universe, and had been so for longer than here on Earth and had therefore resulted in super-intelligence that might appear truly god-like to us inferior beings. It would still have been an entirely natural process.

But there is NO mechanism we know of which could possibly give rise to a god. The Christian claim that God was simply always there just won’t wash: there’s no reason to believe it, it’s simply special pleading, dreamed up, invented, imagined, as a way of trying to prevent the rest of the story simply falling apart. It has nothing whatsoever to support it beyond the wishful thinking of those who want to believe the rest of the story.

So I find it impossible to imagine what proof there might be for God, because it would always be possible to imagine a far more plausible naturalistic explanation (and, for the reason given above, even the most outlandish naturalistic explanation will always be more plausible than an uncreated god).

I can’t prove that there isn’t a god either, of course; but there is absolutely no good reason to believe in one, and that’s why I don’t. I don’t believe in a super-intelligent alien civilisation either, by the way: it’s just a less preposterous hypothesis than an uncreated god."

There can only one perfect and unmoved being that we can call God. Aliens from outer space cannot be perfect because they are multiple and move. Two or more perfect beings cannot co-exist because they are contradictory as definition of a perfect being. This is the absolute proof you are looking for. I dare you disprove the existence of an infinite, immutable unmoved, uncaused one perfect being.

 

[David_Castlen]

There can only one perfect and unmoved being that we can call God. Aliens from outer space cannot be perfect because they are multiple and move. Two or more perfect beings cannot co-exist because they are contradictory as definition of a perfect being. This is the absolute proof you are looking for. I dare you disprove the existence of an infinite, immutable unmoved, uncaused one perfect being.

Aristotle would be proud of you, Boojie. But you could work on that name.

 

[NonServiam]

Just as footprints on a sandy beach are proof enough that a person had previously walked along the beach (or else that another entity had faked the footprints), or that a magnificent, working watch is proof that someone made the watch, why is it not enough that our universe exists, works perfectly, and can sustain us all, to prove a Creator God?

We know that footprints are made by people walking, and we know that watches are made by people constructing them – we know this because we have lots of examples of (human) footprints and watches being made by people and because we’ve never seen them naturally occurring and have no good reason to think that they could occur naturally (for example, there’s no mechanism for watches to spring out of the ground).

But we don’t know that universes are made by intelligent beings. All we can say is that the universe is here. How it got here is a question we have to investigate, and there are many of us who think that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that an intelligent being put it here.

It can certainly be reasoned that God must exist

I agree that a person can construct a consistent argument that ends with the conclusion that a God must exist, but I don’t agree that such arguments are both valid and sound.

Even if one constructs a consistent argument, that argument is worthless unless it can be demonstrated, through evidence, to correspond to the world. I could construct a consistent logical argument that I’m Napoleon, but unless my argument can be supported by evidence from the real world, no one has anyone reason to think it true.

If God were to speak audibly from the sky, so that all people on earth could hear Him, all at the same time, and understand Him perfectly, and also see Him as a ‘living being’ speaking, I wonder if that would suffice.

I’d consider that pretty darn good evidence, and I think that if that ever happened, just about everyone on earth would believe that this God exists. Then, we can get around to the next question: is this being worthy of worship? Why or why not?

Furthermore, if there is a God, and if this God is all-knowing (as many religious believers think), then he already knows exactly what it would take to convince me that he exists (even if I don’t precisely know). So, if he wants to convince me that he exists, he already must know what would convince me. Since he hasn’t convinced me, it suggests that he doesn’t exist or he doesn’t care if I believe in him or not (at least not enough to do anything about it).

 

[Boojie]

Dear Nonserviam,
You have two issues you want answered:

1. Is there a valid, reasonable argument for the existence of God.
2. If he does exist, why is he not convincing you enough to believe in him.

1. to answer the first one, Yes, there is a valid, reasonable argument for the existence of God. “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. Science has established that the universe is 14.7 billion years old.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

To tell me that arguments presented here is invalid, please identify which particular argument is invalid and why. Just to call it invalid without sufficient reason why it is invalid will not prove anything.

1. To answer the second question - why is he not convincing you enough to believe in him?
   He is doing a lot of convincing. Evidently he gave you enough intellect to ask “why is he not convincing you enough to believe in him”. He gave you enough intellect to ask why is there existence not nothing? Why is there a universe not a nothing.
   He gave me enough intellect to give reasonable argument for God’s existence. He also gave you enough intellect to evaluate if my “reasonable” argument is valid enough to prove God exist. You are also given enough intellect to understand that God is not God if you can detect him by our five senses. You can only understand his existence, you cannot see or put him under a microscope. You can only logically not physically perceive him. That’s what I did in my logical syllogism above. It is called inferential method of knowing God.
   Why is he not fully revealing himself to us? Because in addition to the intellect he also gave us free will. He gave us free will to make us a perfect creature and we can only be perfect if we have the free choice to love or reject him. Love he wants from us is faith-based love and that’s the reason he did not fully reveal himself to us.

 

[Gaber]

Just a quick note on all this:

If anyone is relying simply on the rational mind as a venue for an encounter with God, perhaps the effort is useless in proportion to the degree and kind of involvement the “heart” has in the enterprise. I know of no mystic or contemplative that used reason past the function of setting up a frame for interior work, or when that interior work was done, to exegise from experience on a transcendent level to make that level “thinkable.” That’s kind of like using a step-down transformer to allow a very high voltage to be usable. So all the arguing and rationalizing about God is just that. Go find out, you go find out, not from someone else’s books or say so, and then use your “reason” to cogently orgder your experience as a pointer. Words, especially logic and “proofs,” will never contain the Ineffable! Oherwise, you may rightfully be expressing hope, but have very limited authority even to yourself.

 

[CarolVP]

Nonserviam’s moniker may indicate his/her true state of mind. Just as Lucifer declared “Non serviam!” (that he would not serve), so does Nonserviam. Deliberate?

Boojie has given excellent reason to believe in a supernatural being, and good reason to know what this supernatural Being must be like.

It is possible, using our rational minds, to move from atheism (no God), to deism (an impersonal God), to theism (a God who is a Person). We must then make a conscious decision to know more about God, to love Him, and then to serve Him. Love is in the will. This conscious decision is the sticking point. It could be pride that must be overcome. It could be an unwillingness to be shown to be foolish by believing in a Someone who cannot be physically seen or heard. Atheism does this. Atheism ridicules those who reason to a Personal, loving, Creator God. Atheism prefers to believe in an eternal, uncreated (or, perhaps, self-created) universe. Then, the atheist doesn’t have to worship - there’s nothing to worship. It’s a bit of wishful thinking, in some ways. Atheists mock theists for believing in a God who will judge us, and “grant us” Heaven. But, atheists believe in no God, no Heaven or Hell, and are required, therefore, to do nothing about it. [Hope that I’m not being too harsh, here. There are, definitely, sincere seekers after truth.]

God bless all.

 

[roveau]

I’ve only read a few posts, I must the hundredth person to write that if we had absolute proof that God exists, then we wouldn’t need faith.

God asks us to have faith, to believe. Blessed are those that believe but believe without having to see proof, like St Thomas needed proof when Christ Himself appeared to the apostles after the Resurrection.

For those waiting around for ‘proof’ before they commit to God. When Christ comes back in glory to judge the living and the dead… that will be proof… but by then it will be too late if you haven’t turned to God.

 

[CarolVP]

I’ve only read a few posts, I must the hundredth person to write that if we had absolute proof that God exists, then we wouldn’t need faith.

God asks us to have faith, to believe. Blessed are those that believe but believe without having to see proof, like St Thomas needed proof when Christ Himself appeared to the apostles after the Resurrection.

I agree, but I also disagree. Faith is required for the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God (like St Thomas), and as the Saviour. Faith is required to accept Christianity as the true Faith given to us by God. Faith is required to accept that God is a Trinity, as well as all of the other Mysteries.

Faith is belief based on trust. All human beings have faith, especially if understood as ‘belief based on trust’. Faith, in this sense, can be applied to anything.

On the other hand, Supernatural Faith is faith given by God, and is a gift.

There is also Reason. Reason tells us that there must be a Creator Being. Otherwise, nothing could possibly exist. Reason tells us that this Creator Being must have attributes far beyond comprehension. If Aristotle could reason to the existence of God, and to some of His attributes, then it is certainly possible for other mere mortals.

With Reason, we can also accept the evidence of miracles. There have been so many miracles supporting the Truth of the Catholic Faith, such as those from Lourdes and from some of the canonised saints. These miracles can be researched and studied, and examined for their veracity.

This is why our Reason and Faith must go together. Reason can bring us to the acceptance of God’s existence, and to the veracity of certain miraculous events. Humans must then be willing to accept the consequences of the knowledge of God’s existence, and of the existence of miracles, and follow where this leads. Human faith and reason can help to some extent, but God’s Grace is required for full acceptance.

 

[NonServiam]

To tell me that arguments presented here is invalid, please identify which particular argument is invalid and why.

Sure thing. I aim to please.

“It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.”

This premise has not been demonstrated to be true. Far from being “self-evident,” current research suggests that a mind is an emergent property of physical brains. Even though we don’t know enough about how exactly the whole process works, we know enough that – at the very least – we can say that your premise is not necessarily true.

Something exists.

I’ll agree with that.

You do not get something from nothing.

This premise has not been demonstrated to be true. I would argue that “nothing” is an entirely imaginary, made-up concept (since, by most definitions of “nothing,” it would be impossible to exist), thus making any claims made about this “nothing” nonsensical make-believe at best.

Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Based on a premise that has not been demonstrated to be true.

The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe. Science has established that the universe is 14.7 billion years old.

Equivocation. When scientists say that the “universe” is 14.7 billion years old, they’re talking about the universe in its current form (i.e. after the Big Bang). They know nothing about what came before the Big Bang. It is possible that there was an eternal “something” that has always existed before the Big Bang (and thus before time) that started to expand as a result of some natural law of the (pre)universe.

Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Your argument is unsound, as I’ve demonstrated. You’ve actually given a perfect illustration of an argument that is logically consistent with itself but that proceeds from assumptions that haven’t been demonstrated to be true or consist of false equivocations.

He gave me enough intellect to give reasonable argument for God’s existence.

Don’t be so sure there.

He also gave you enough intellect to evaluate if my “reasonable” argument is valid enough to prove God exist.

Well, I do have such an intellect, but I do not accept your assertion that “He” exists and has “given” me anything. I do not accept it on the basis that your argument is insufficient.

 

[Godmachine]

If the universe was created by a god that wanted people to know it exists, then everyone would know it exists. It would be as obvious as the sun and the moon. God would not have to rely on faith or belief. The fact that “god” is not as obvious to everyone as the sun and the moon is proof (to me anyway) that if a god exists, it does not care what we believe or think we know.

 

[CarolVP]

Quote - " ‘You do not get something from nothing.’

Quote - This premise has not been demonstrated to be true. I would argue that “nothing” is an entirely imaginary, made-up concept (since, by most definitions of “nothing,” it would be impossible to exist), thus making any claims made about this “nothing” nonsensical make-believe at best." (Quote from NonServiam)

This statement is not rational. “Nothing” is the complete absence of “something” or “anything”. It is a definition, and to claim that it is make-believe is irrational. It is possible to have a complete absence of many things. I am not you, and you are not me, meaning that that where you are, I am not, and where I am, you are not. I live on land, and not the the sea. My particular place of dwelling, therefore, is a complete absence of the ocean. Absolute zero is the complete absence of heat, and the list goes on and on.

To argue that ‘nothing’ can’t be used as a concept is to assign it even less than ‘fairy-value’. People can’t have meaningful conversations unless they understand terms rationally and evenly. We may not be able to imagine ‘nothing’ sufficiently, just as I can never sufficiently imagine being cold when I am hot, heat when I am freezing, and pain when I am pain-free (and vice versa). This doesn’t mean that I can’t use the concepts. The only concepts that should not be used are those which are internal contradictions, such as a “round square”, et c.

 

[dedo]

I think the only way to get proof that God exists is to seek God, and to try and submit to His will.

God could easily provide some huge demonstration of His power to people who don’t seek Him, but He does not do that.

Thus, He must have a reason.

I assume that it is because God wants us each to know something about His nature, not just that He exists.

You cannot know God’s nature unless you seek Him.

 

[CarolVP]

Equivocation. When scientists say that the “universe” is 14.7 billion years old, they’re talking about the universe in its current form (i.e. after the Big Bang). They know nothing about what came before the Big Bang. It is possible that there was an eternal “something” that has always existed before the Big Bang (and thus before time) that started to expand as a result of some natural law of the (pre)universe.

You believe in infinite regress? The material universe being un-created, un-caused and eternal - no beginning and no end? Mmmmm…

 

[CarolVP]

I think the only way to get proof that God exists is to seek God, and to try and submit to His will.

God could easily provide some huge demonstration of His power to people who don’t seek Him, but He does not do that.

Thus, He must have a reason.

I assume that it is because God wants us each to know something about His nature, not just that He exists.

You cannot know God’s nature unless you seek Him.

Well said, Dedo. Many do not wish to believe in God, partially because they do not wish to submit to any of His commands. Or, they do not wish to appear foolish. They want material proof of an immaterial being, and won’t trust reasoning and logic without physical manifestations.

I do believe that a person can reason to the existence of God, and some aspects of His nature, but must then trust to God’s revelation for the rest. And, yes, a willingness to find truth, and to follow the evidence where it leads, is absolutely necessary. A committed atheist or agnostic, if a sincere seeker after truth, could pray to a God he/she doesn’t accept the existence of, and request help:

God, I don’t believe that you exist, but these foolish faith-heads do.
If You do actually exist, please show me, somehow.
Help me to see what I can’t see now. Amen.

 

[NonServiam]

It is possible to have a complete absence of many things.

But it is not possible to have a complete absence of all existent things, which is often how I see “nothing” defined.

In this context (talking about where the universe came from) “nothing” would have to be the absence of all existent things, and such a “nothing” has never existed and could never exist, by its own definition, which means that it’s not a real thing about which one can make claims.

I don’t deny that “nothing” is a concept, but I do deny that the concept – in the way that it’s being used here, as the absence of all existent things – corresponds to anything real, thus making it fantasy to talk about it.

You believe in infinite regress?

No. I was saying that it is possible that an eternal “something” always existed (before the Big Bang and therefore before time itself), thus invalidating the premise the other poster was using.

Saying that “X is possible” is quite different from saying “I believe X,” even beside the fact that X, in this case, does not necessitate an “infinite regress” as you claim.

 

[Gaber]

If the universe was created by a god that wanted people to know it exists, then everyone would know it exists. It would be as obvious as the sun and the moon. God would not have to rely on faith or belief. The fact that “god” is not as obvious to everyone as the sun and the moon is proof (to me anyway) that if a god exists, it does not care what we believe or think we know.

I think that might well be why the Sun was so often the symbol for God: impartial support of all activities so that consequnces might be observed and considered in its Light. And the Moon is then the reflector, the intellect, shining not by its own light,giving a much paler illuminaton to the world. It is a very powerful and under-utilized symbology.

 

[CarolVP]

Infinite regress - the universe had no beginning. It came from something that already existed, which had come from something that already existed, ad infinitum.

Self-created universe - the universe created itself. ‘Nothing’ turned itself into ‘something’.

Created universe A - the universe had a creator, greater than it, more powerful than it, and in existence before it, within time and space. Possibility that this creator was itself created even earlier than the universe. Ergo, a greater creator, and perhaps another, and another, also infinitely regressing into eternity.

Created universe B - the universe had a creator, greater than it, more powerful than it, in existence before it, and itself possessing existence outside of time and space.