Why is God proveable only through thought processes?

[Struggling1]

So a common argument I see is that God is not detectable or proveable by science and that only metaphysics and theology can explain it. Can someone walk me through why only in this area we had to develop new logical thought experiments not based in any physical evidence whatsoever to explain God? I understand the faith argument and the free will argument but to be honest it all seems like a really easy way to be like oh you can’t prove God scientifically? Let me just create a new science that does prove it. For an instance is philosophy or theology based in anything else besides logical reasoning?

 

[Struggling1]

And again the Bible verse that talks about how for some people no evidence is enough. I’m struggling with that because I do want to believe yet I can’t distance these concerns I have or push them out of my mind. Nor does it seem right that you have to ignore a bunch of knowledge to believe.

 

[KevinK]

I don’t think a person can will themselves to believe something. Either the evidence convinces them or it doesn’t. Beliefs are not subject to the will.

 

[Struggling1]

But there has to be a way I legitimately want to believe but I’m struggling since there’s a lack of evidence I don’t want to be damned merely because I can’t understand!

 

[Struggling1]

Like people say well how do you explain consciousness, does psychology not answer those questions but rooted in medical and mental reasons? Could micro evolution not have helped less people to die that were rational and so each generation that was more rational survived leading to more people surviving and carrying rationality with them?

 

[Kei]

Because God is not normally physical or some mere part of the universe to be detected by physical means.

He has gifted us with reason. We learn of the immaterial through use of right reason.

 

[Struggling1]

But God is physical Jesús took human form! An artist leaves a signature that’s individually unique in their works and yet the only time we are supposed to accept the lack of a signature is in God’s creation? Why would a God who loves us so much and understands the workings of our mind and who was willing to provide proof to those who absolutely needed it biblically like the doubting apostle Thomas and Saul, or the transfiguration, not provide us the same undeniable evidence of his God hood. Is it not odd that as science explains more more people become atheists or don’t believe? Why would he supposedly who loves us above all else not help us?

 

[MPat]

I don’t want to be damned merely because I can’t understand!

You don’t have to “understand” in order to “believe”.

People do not understand Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. But many do believe them.

I don’t think a person can will themselves to believe something. Either the evidence convinces them or it doesn’t. Beliefs are not subject to the will.

Please note complete lack of evidence presented in support of those beliefs. Also please note the implied will to believe them.

That, of course, is evidence for beliefs being influenced by will.

Not to mention that someone who would really believe that beliefs are based on evidence alone would go and investigate what evidence is available to others, who have different beliefs, for they (according to this view) would have to have seen evidence for those beliefs. And we do not really see that happening…

For an instance is philosophy or theology based in anything else besides logical reasoning?

Theology is obviously based on Scripture, writings of Fathers of the Church and the like. So, the question is already based on a very clearly false premise.

But then there’s a second problem: Mathematics is based on logical reasoning as well. As is any kind of Logic (obviously). As is Computer Science (which, after all, is a branch of Mathematics). And yet, I do not see you doubt them. For that would be obviously silly (and would finish off all other sciences as well). Well, so is doubting Philosophy and Theology for this reason.

Logical reasoning is a perfectly good basis for science.

Can someone walk me through why only in this area we had to develop new logical thought experiments not based in any physical evidence whatsoever to explain God?

Existence of the world seems to be pretty physical to me.

I understand the faith argument and the free will argument but to be honest it all seems like a really easy way to be like oh you can’t prove God scientifically? Let me just create a new science that does prove it.

Historically, what is now “Physics”, “Chemistry” or “Biology” were branches of Philosophy (more specifically, Natural Philosophy).

But if you get such doubts, perhaps you should look for some less rational cause, and see if you can remove it. The most obvious candidate is the friendship to atheist that you mention in other threads. Are you sure it is a good idea to keep it? Can you list some benefits you get from it? Risk for your faith or your sanity (doubting validity of logical reasoning is not good for your sanity) would better be outweighed by some great benefits…

 

[Wingz]

The reason that God cannot be detected through science is because science only deals with the physical world. God is not physical he is spiritual. “God is spirit.” John 4:24. Everything in the physical world had a beginning they did not come from nothing. Many counter this claim by saying “then where did God come from?” however the fact that everything cannot come from nothing means that some force outside of time and space (the physical world) had to bring everything into existence this being is God. Jesus was both man and God. Since God is spirit. Jesus was human physically but God spiritually. God is able to interact with the physical world through miracles. These are things that cannot be explained by science since they originated from something outside the limits of science. Today miracles continue to take place and God continues to make himself known to people.

 

[Vico]

So a common argument I see is that God is not detectable or proveable by science and that only metaphysics and theology can explain it. Can someone walk me through why only in this area we had to develop new logical thought experiments not based in any physical evidence whatsoever to explain God? I understand the faith argument and the free will argument but to be honest it all seems like a really easy way to be like oh you can’t prove God scientifically? Let me just create a new science that does prove it. For an instance is philosophy or theology based in anything else besides logical reasoning?

When someone experiences the Holy Trinity, that experience is questioned by others because they have not had that experience or have not recognized it.

 

[Kei]

That’s why I said normally, precisely because I considered the Incarnation.

More precisely, God is transcendent.
All of nature does bare His trace.

God is Truth, higher than merely what is seen or experienced. A Truth seen with right reason, that which is more reliable than merely seeing, which is just the way our minds process information from light.

Remember that the Bible is written over hundreds and hundreds of years. God still does give us apparitions and miracles, throughout the thousands of years of Church history. Why do you suppose you specifically need it to happen to you?

 

[MPat]

Why would a God who loves us so much and understands the workings of our mind and who was willing to provide proof to those who absolutely needed it biblically like the doubting apostle Thomas and Saul, or the transfiguration, not provide us the same undeniable evidence of his God hood.

They did not have evidence that you have. One of many pieces of evidence that you have consists in them giving up their lives rather than deny the Resurrection. They obviously didn’t have this piece.

And let’s face it: the evidence for Catholic faith is overwhelming. Just look: you yourself had to start doubting logical reasoning itself to doubt Catholic faith!

And not everyone was given the evidence that they demanded. See, for example, Matthew 12:38-39 (“Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master we would see a sign from thee. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.”).

 

[Struggling1]

I could argue that the earth itself is a God with the same angle of thinking! Just because modern science can’t tell the earth is a living being you have to use (what I will call planetism for the sake of discussion) I can point to all of earths creation! In fact the personhood of the earth is still here today! Our whole lives drive to fulfill the wishes of the earth, we derive life itself from the water and food it bestows. How could you disprove that by not using arguments that would also refute Catholicism? I am sorry I’m being obtuse.

 

[Struggling1]

That seems like an incredibly easy to explain away explanation. Oh you are having trouble using any methods of empirical evidence that God exists? Well he’s non physical checkmate atheists! You guys just use the wrong tool. I could make up a tool for anything I want to believe. Thank you for your response and I really am sorry for being difficult.

 

[Struggling1]

So we are evil for wanting signs of Gods existence and yet he’s supposed to be a being of immense love and wants to have a personal relationship with us? It sounds ridiculous. He created us knowing we are physical creatures and yet he won’t meet us with that proof? Just once couldn’t I have the experience so many others have of God? Just once couldn’t I have the unexplainable happen for me? I am a fruit of how I was raised am I really damned for being raised in a generation that believes in science and evidence?

 

[Struggling1]

So because my atheist friend provides counter points and arguments I should get rid of the friendship because these things are too difficult? I thought the church encouraged scientific reasoning and helped to develop much of the known sciences?

 

[Struggling1]

Then why won’t he make himself known to me?

 

[Struggling1]

People point to the Bible as proof but if I tried to use the same logic with say saying lord of the rings is real and saying but look in this book Sauron existed! I would be laughed at?

 

[Struggling1]

Because I’m having a really difficult time believing something I can’t witness. I don’t understand why. I want to believe without questioning and yet I am afraid of believing in something that I have never witnessed, I have never felt, why can Thomas be able to put his hand in Jesús side and everyone is mad at me for wanting something similar?

 

[MPat]

I could argue that the earth itself is a God with the same angle of thinking! Just because modern science can’t tell the earth is a living being you have to use (what I will call planetism for the sake of discussion) I can point to all of earths creation! In fact the personhood of the earth is still here today! Our whole lives drive to fulfill the wishes of the earth, we derive life itself from the water and food it bestows. How could you disprove that by not using arguments that would also refute Catholicism? I am sorry I’m being obtuse.

And what exactly in here is supposed to be based on logical reasoning?

Where are the premises? Where are the intermediate conclusions?

That’s just bad poetry. Of the kind we see when atheists try to find a way to explain morality.

Catholic faith is supported by good arguments. Atheism is only supported by bad poetry.

So we are evil for wanting signs of Gods existence

No, exaggerated demands for signs are a symptom, not a disease.

So because my atheist friend provides counter points and arguments I should get rid of the friendship because these things are too difficult?

How can he offer arguments when he’s denying logical reasoning?

No, it doesn’t look like he is offering arguments. It looks like he is offering propaganda. And it also looks like you are not good at dealing with propaganda.

And let’s note that I asked you what benefits you get. Since you suddenly got so defensive, I conclude that there are no benefits worth talking about. And then it is not really much of a friendship anyway.

People point to the Bible as proof but if I tried to use the same logic with say saying lord of the rings is real and saying but look in this book Sauron existed! I would be laughed at?

I pointed to Bible to point out that you misrepresent the Catholic position.

I would be laughed at?

That, by the way, looks suspicious. Why should you care if anyone laughs at you? You should care if you are right.

and yet I am afraid of believing in something that I have never witnessed,

Can you explain, why are you afraid?