What would you do if it were proven...?

[Charlemagne_II]

samian
**
The Catechism says there are “…proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth.”
This is foolish - to declare something with certainty without scientific proof. **

What’s really foolish is to suppose that if God cannot be scientifically proven, then we cannot be certain that He exists. Scientism, or the worship of science as the single avenue to certainty, is itself foolish. There are other ways to know God for certain without finding Him through a telescope.

As Pascal said, there is a God-shaped vacuum in all our hearts, waiting to be filled by the presence of God, Whom you will know for a certainty only after you let Him in.

 

[Windfish]

I’m confused. I do understand the difference, however, are you saying you don’t have faith that He exists? How come when a person questions the existence of God it is said that they lack faith? People will tell them “have faith.”

As far as I can tell, that is a Protestant way of thinking about “faith.” Protestants typically honor thinkers like the existentialist Soren Kierkegaard who believed that faith is irrational, but it is a leap we must take in the face of the existential storm that is life. And so, Protestants tend to be very emotional and neurotic about “faith.” But it is a weird way of looking at things. According to that view, I should have faith that God exists AND faith in Him, who might not even exist! No wonder we have this atheist backlash! It is that kind of religion that they abhor. Well, us too. We don’t have a doctrinal place in Catholicism for thinkers like Kierkegaard, who was a Protestant.

It is a dogma of Catholicism that God can be known with certainty through human reason. That Revelation is a fact of history. That the Catholic Church is God’s appointed means for teaching and salvation, and that its authority is backed up by an uninterrupted history of miracles and holiness by its saints. All of that, we claim, can be plainly be known by all. What we have faith in is God and what he has revealed. For the things he revealed cannot be plainly known, they must be accepted on faith. But that faith is certain, for it rests on the authority of God, whom we know to exist and whom we know cannot deceive or be deceived.

If people doubt that God exists, it is for several reasons. Most importantly, it is due to Original Sin - the reality that we have lost our Sonship to God and, therefore, direct knowledge of him. Our connection to him severed, we fall into the illusion of materialism, and make material things our idols in place of God. Our inclination towards the carnal and material is a veil that clouds our vision of God. Because God and His revelation are not immediate things that can be experienced by most of us, we must move our intellect with our wills to the truth of God and his revelation. And so, with the will involved, we can falter. This is why, although God is certain and his Revelation certain, we can be moved to doubt and darkness.

If any Catholic tells a doubting person to simply “have faith” in the face of doubt of God’s existence, it is because they have absorbed Protestant thinking. And this is not too uncommon. Ask any orthodox Catholic living in America.

Yes, but the section of the Catechism concerning the existence of God is under Part 1, “The profession of** faith**.”
The Catechism says there are “…proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth.”

It is a dogma of the CC that God can be known to exist with human reason. That is part of the divine Deposit of the Faith, and we profess it. What is your point?

This is foolish - to declare something with certainty without scientific proof.

Are you certain about that? Care to prove that scientifically?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is foolish - to declare something with certainty without scientific proof.

Those words can only be spoken by somebody who doesn’t understand the nature of scientific knowledge, and what is meant by the word “certain”. It is foolish to think that science gives us certain knowledge. The Catholic faith explains that you can know God with certainty, meaning that there is no room for rational doubt since there is no rational possibility of it being wrong. That is what is meant by the word certain. If that was not what was meant, they would have made it clear that we can only come to a probable knowledge of God; i.e, God is more probable than improbable. They would not have used the word certain. I agree that when they speak of “proofs”, they certainly don’t mean the probabilistic induction and methods used by science in order to gain knowledge.

However, it is true that most people come to the faith by faith alone; but this is only evidence that such certainty is not accessible by all mortal minds. This is to say, very few people obtain certain knowledge of God, because they have difficulty understanding why certain arguments for Gods existence are correct. It is also possible that the correct arguments have not yet been presented; but this would not contradict the faith because the idea that God can be proven to exist is a general principle of Catholic theology. This is to say that it is has to be considered possible, even if it hasn’t yet been achieved by anyone.

There is a higher form of proof that transcends scientific knowledge, It is the kind of truth that science needs in order to function properly as a giver of truth, as opposed to meaningless tautologies. This kind of proof is justified in that it deals with general truths as opposed to particular truths. It is true that one cannot prove the existence of particular “physical” objects, particular “natures” or powers, without the scientific method. But we can say with absolute certainty that there are such things as “natures” in general without reference to science, and we would have to, otherwise we would have no rational justification to study natures, since we would have no true knowledge of their existence. One can come to knowledge of truths which are required for the existence of scientific truths. For example, that there is such a thing as “existence”, and that reality is required in-order for there to be and to speak meaningfully of reality, is pre-scientific knowledge, and it is absolute certain knowledge. Also, it is a truth that is required before one can rationally speak of scientific truths. It is a higher form of truth and knowledge that transcends the kind of knowledge that can be attained by science. It is metaphysical truth, which is the highest form of rational certainty, simply because the denial of it would destroy the rational nature of reality itself and the ability to attain true knowledge; and this would also destroy the sciences, since the sciences are also reliant upon rational distinctions, in so for as its ability to attain “objective knowledge”. The fact that reality is rational and therefore knowable, is a pre-scientific truth, and it is upon that truth that science rationally proceeds. “I think there for I am”, is also certain knowledge which does not require scientific knowledge in-order to be known.

 

[samiam1611]

Those words can only be spoken by somebody who doesn’t understand the nature of scientific knowledge, and what is meant by the word “certain”. It is foolish to think that science gives us certain knowledge.

For the record, I do not think that scientific knowledge gives us certainty. This is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I like science because it is willing to examine, if not seek out, new evidence to get closer to certainty. As opposed to digging in its heels.

I did not say science gives us certainty God does not exist. I said it’s foolish to declare certainty without scientific evidence, because even science itself won’t admit it is certain!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I said it’s foolish to declare certainty without scientific evidence, because even science itself won’t admit it is certain!

There is a higher form of proof that transcends scientific knowledge, It is the kind of truth that science needs in order to function properly as a giver of truth, as opposed to meaningless tautologies. This kind of proof is justified in that it deals with general truths as opposed to particular truths. It is true that one cannot prove the existence of particular “physical” objects, particular “natures” or powers, without the scientific method. But we can say with absolute certainty that there are such things as “natures” in general without reference to science, and we would have to, otherwise we would have no rational justification to study natures, since we would have no true knowledge of their existence. One can come to knowledge of truths which are required for the existence of scientific truths. For example, that there is such a thing as “existence”, and that reality is required in-order for there to be and to speak meaningfully of reality, is pre-scientific knowledge, and it is absolute certain knowledge. Also, it is a truth that is required before one can rationally speak of scientific truths. It is a higher form of truth and knowledge that transcends the kind of knowledge that can be attained by science. It is metaphysical truth, which is the highest form of rational certainty, simply because the denial of it would destroy the rational nature of reality itself and the ability to attain true knowledge; and this would also destroy the sciences, since the sciences are also reliant upon rational distinctions, in so for as its ability to attain “objective knowledge”. The fact that reality is rational and therefore knowable, is a pre-scientific truth, and it is upon that truth that science rationally proceeds. “I think there for I am”, is also certain knowledge which does not require scientific knowledge in-order to be known with absolute certainty.

 

[samiam1611]

It is a dogma of the CC that God can be known to exist with human reason. That is part of the divine Deposit of the Faith, and we profess it. What is your point?

I didn’t have much of a point really other than that you that said “We have faith in God. That is very different from having faith that he exists” and I wanted to show where I got my idea that it seems that the CC recognizes that belief/certainty in the existence of God involves a certain amount of faith. Maybe it’s because we are fallen, sure. It seemed as if you were denying that although you didn’t say that exactly. Anyway, you explained yourself in your next post, I just wanted to explain my “point.”

 

[JackLewis]

There is no way to prove God. God can only be revealed, and that is His decision. Now, we can reason that there must be a God, but we cannot know the Person of God unless we see Him by the eyes of Faith, which is a divine grace.
So I guess my question is, does “God” here mean the Person of God, or just a higher power?

 

[samiam1611]

Welcome to CAF!

There is no way to prove God.

I agree. Its just a hypothetical though. Try not to think about what sort of proof you would need, that’s not the point of this thread.

God can only be revealed, and that is His decision. Now, we can reason that there must be a God, but we cannot know the Person of God unless we see Him by the eyes of Faith, which is a divine grace.

Indeed

So I guess my question is, does “God” here mean the Person of God, or just a higher power?

Would your answer be different depending on which one the OP meant?

 

[Windfish]

There is no way to prove God.

That is not in accordance with reason, Catholic teaching, or the Bible.

 

[samiam1611]

That is not in accordance with reason, Catholic teaching, or the Bible.

He probably meant scientific proof.

 

[Windfish]

He probably meant scientific proof.

Then it depends on what he means by scientific. In the narrower sense as it used in modern times, then even that is not proof but a probabilistic conclusion. In any case, it is complete non sequitur for God’s existence to be proven by empirical or scientific means because he is immaterial. Science has absolutely nothing to say, and will never have anything to say on the existence of God. Even in the case of miracles, and there are many that have been examined by science, all science can do is examine the empirical effects of a miracle, not of its Causer.

 

[joemccarron]

Hi,

I’m new here on CAF but thought I’d post a question which interests me.

For those who are theists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does not exist”

For those who are atheists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does exist”

Thanks for taking the time.

I don’t think people can know what would happen if certain core beliefs were forcibly abandoned. Its sort of like asking “what if it was proven to you that killing people because of their race is not wrong?”

The only thing I can say is it would certainly change my view of things.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Then it depends on what he means by scientific. In the narrower sense as it used in modern times, then even that is not proof but a probabilistic conclusion. In any case, it is complete non sequitur for God’s existence to be proven by empirical or scientific means because he is immaterial. Science has absolutely nothing to say, and will never have anything to say on the existence of God. Even in the case of miracles, and there are many that have been examined by science, all science can do is examine the empirical effects of a miracle, not of its Causer.

I second this. That’s why atheists tend to go down the road of reducing all rational conclusions to scientific data. They will try to argue that scientific evidence is the only rational reason we can have for claiming knowledge of some-things existence, and thus rendering non-physical concepts meaningless in terms of rational conclusions. We have this attempt by atheists to turn all knowledge in to probabilistic facts, and by doing so presenting the false and yet seductive idea that the only probabilities we should take seriously are ones that are justified by the scientific method. In so doing we are forced to conclude that any probability that isn’t physical in nature is unmeasurable, and thus we cannot rationally conclude that it exists.

But obviously this backfires severely, and therefore they will try to present some watered down version of the same epistemological problem. But it won’t work, for the simple fact that we can know some things for certain without reference to scientific data. This is not to say that science is unimportant, but I don’t need science to know that out of nothing comes nothing. I don’t need science to know that in order to think I must first exist. There are evidently principles and truths about existence that we can know without the scientific method. There are immaterial truths, such as mathematical truths, that we can know without science.

 

[samiam1611]

Then it depends on what he means by scientific. In the narrower sense as it used in modern times, then even that is not proof but a probabilistic conclusion. In any case, it is complete non sequitur for God’s existence to be proven by empirical or scientific means because he is immaterial. Science has absolutely nothing to say, and will never have anything to say on the existence of God. Even in the case of miracles, and there are many that have been examined by science, all science can do is examine the empirical effects of a miracle, not of its Causer.

No disagreement here. Remember, the OP is “if it were proven to your satisfaction…” Not “what would it take to prove…” or even “what would it take to prove to you…”

An individual can be shown evidence that convinces them of one thing or another. Even if the scientific community’s standards (or the religious authorities’ standards) have not been met, that doesn’t mean an individual can’t feel confident in their conclusion.

It is so tempting for us all to debate what sort of proof is needed, or why another person’s conclusion is wrong or why one’s own conclusion is right. But it tends to be frustrating, borders on discussing a banned topic, and distracts us from the OP, strictly speaking. It is supposed to be about individuals’ reaction to evidence that contradicted/disproved their current belief.

 

[samiam1611]

That’s why atheists tend to go down the road of reducing all rational conclusions to scientific data. They will try to argue that scientific evidence is the only rational reason we can have for claiming knowledge of some-things existence, and thus rendering non-physical concepts meaningless in terms of rational conclusions.

This is not true for me. At least, not with the absolutes you have used (“all” “only” “meaningless”). I think scientific evidence is the ideal way to reach a rational conclusion.

We have this attempt by atheists to turn all knowledge in to probabilistic facts, and by doing so presenting the false and yet seductive idea that the only probabilities we should take seriously are ones that are justified by the scientific method.

That doesn’t sound seductive to me. It’s frustrating (and ironic!) to not have any proof for my beliefs. What’s seductive is the belief that an immaterial being hears your prayers. It’s seductive to think you will be reunited with loved ones in heaven. It’s seductive to think everything happens for a reason and that when something bad happens, God had a good reason for it.

In so doing we are forced to conclude that any probability that isn’t physical in nature is unmeasurable, and thus we cannot rationally conclude that it exists.

I disagree, though perhaps there are atheists who would say that. I don’t think that belief in something unmeasurable or non-physical is necessarily irrational. Not at all. Some religious beliefs are rational enough. The more details a religion claims, the more skeptical I am. For instance, it is not grossly irrational to think a higher being created the universe. It is grossly irrational to think the first woman was made from the rib of the first man and that a talking serpent led the first man and woman to fall from grace.

---

I was trying to think of some non-scientific/nonphysical ways that could convince an atheist that God existed. I want to debunk your assumptions even though they’re not way off base lol. Here are some of my ideas:
-if someone has a near death experience, they might go through something that makes them change their mind
-if they do some sort of hallucinogenic drug, like mushrooms or peyote, they could have a spiritual experience while tripping, and it could even lead to feeling spiritual when they are no longer tripping (feeling spiritual being the first step on the road to theism)

Besides, lots of former atheists have converted! Presumably, they did not have scientific evidence for it. We should ask them what convinced them.

 

[Candide_West]

Presumably because we don’t develop concepts except on the basis of experience. Do you have some other theory about how we come to ‘possess’ and understand concepts?

Yes indeed, I’ve mentioned it before, but abstract reasoning is a simple way of inventing and understanding concepts. It’s where I think the God concept (and for that matter most superstitions) come from. Abstract reasoning trying to explain something.*

Certainly, but your understanding is only possible insofar as you have had the relevant experience. And the ‘quality’/depth/rigor of your understanding is also presumably commensurate with the quality/depth/rigor of the experience grounding that understanding.

As above disagree that you can only get concepts from experience. For example my level of experience with God is nil. Yet I understand the concept quite well. The same can be said for plenty of other concepts.*

That’s true in a sense, but not true in another sense. The flying spaghetti monster, for instance: the basic conceptual elements - flying, spaghetti, monster - are things you have experienced. Your judgment regarding the applicability of these three items to some real entity is a different matter. There is obviously nothing about these three conceptual items, in relation to each other, which would indicate that such an entity might reasonably be conjectured to exist.

Right, so I have imagined something which does not in fact exist. Which is exactly what Rahner appears to be saying I can’t do.

Again, I’m not sure if you read what I said carefully:*

If the atheist admits that she doesn’t want to concept to be ‘dead,’ then she admits one of two things: 1) it is dead for her, but she is happy for there to be others for whom the concept is not dead, and this despite the fact that she regards them rather superciliously, as people who cling to a childish fantasy; 2) she will have to admit that ‘God’ indeed is an entirely legitimate concept that mature intelligent adults have to take seriously in order to be mature intelligent adults - which would be to concede Rahner’s point.*

Above you seem to be slightly shifting what I said to make 2) fade into 1). It can’t just be “part of growing up” - that would be compatible with 1), and 2) is explicitly stated so as not to be compatible with 1). You have to choose.

Ahhh perhaps I haven’t read carefully enough then…Ok, in that case what you have presented here is a false dichotomy. Hence I choose option 3). That ‘God’ is a viable concept for adults to consider, but is not ‘required’ to be a mature adult.

As I understand it, “support my position” is what I did with my challenge to you.

Er, no I think that would be just challenging my position, not supporting your own. Supporting your position would be providing a reasoned argument or evidence showing it to be correct. All you have said effectively is “prove me wrong then”.*

If you have no suggestion to make as an alternative to mine, then it would appear to be reasonable to hold my position, rather than yours (since yours isn’t really a position, beyond the purely negative rejection of my position).

So it is reasonable to take a totally unsupported position rather than reject it? I don’t think I can agree with you here. *

*I guess it comes down to whether you are looking to understand as best you can, or seeking to doubt as much as you can. You’ll get into a lot of trouble with the latter position though, if you’re consistent. Radical doubt just isn’t a stable/tenable position, even if it can be a legitimate part of ‘growing up’ (I’m assuming you won’t disagree with this claim).

Not sure why you think it comes down to this to be honest. I don’t think either of us have proposed “radical doubt”. Rather you have proposed that humans are unable to question radically without reference to God and I have asked you to support your claim. This seems reasonable to me. Does it not to you?

How about: getting to the root of the human situation, so far as possible.

Ok, now obviously at an individual level people can question their choices, opinions and actions to an unlimited extent. They can also question internally the value of their life and that of others and their own purposes within it. The field of psychology is able to provide detailed insights into both how our consciousness exists and why our perception of things are the way they are etc. Biology and biochemistry are well equipped to provide insight into the function and workings of the brain… None of this requires any reference to God.

 

[tonyrey]

For instance, it is not grossly irrational to think a higher being created the universe.

You are on the right track.

It is grossly irrational to think the universe just happens to exist or succeeded in creating itself!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes indeed, I’ve mentioned it before, but abstract reasoning is a simple way of inventing and understanding concepts. It’s where I think the God concept (and for that matter most superstitions) come from. Abstract reasoning trying to explain something.*

So i guess science is an inventor of superstition simply because its method relies upon abstract reasoning, for example mathematics and induction, including logical inferences to things that cannot be seen directly. Don’t be ridiculous!!

Candide west, do your self a favor and stop smoking weed for while; for at least a year.

.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

For example my level of experience with God is nil. Yet I understand the concept quite well.

I don’t think you do understand the concept. It is true that you do not know God directly, but you are aware of God indirectly through your experience of things, but you do not yet understand nor identify God in your experiences.

I don’t think either of us have proposed “radical doubt”.

You indirectly claim that you do not know that it is impossible for something to come from nothing; thus in a sense admitting that it might be possible.

I would call that irrational doubt.

 

[Candide_West]

It would be interesting to know what is the source of that joy since ultimately you are doomed by either of two facts:

1. There is no life after your death.
2. There is a life after your death, but the path you have chosen is into darkness, rather than light.

Or 3. There is life after death and mine will be great…

Obviously I don’t believe either 2. or 3. But they are both theoretically possible. But rather irrelevant to your question.

The happiness and joy in my life come from the enjoyment of being alive and all the wonderful things I am lucky enough to have. Such as health, freedom, friends and family, my own brain… Etc.