Proving God's Existence

[dairygirl4u2c]

i had edited my essay a little.
i would appreciate more ideas.

[quote]Depends on the level of proof you want, and how you define God. But ultimately, if you define God in any meaningful terms, or with substantial level of proof, God's existence cannot be proven.

incidentally. I believe in God's existence, but I don't claim it's definitive proof.
the act of faith -- of its very nature -- involves man's free choice libero arbitrio


CAUSATION
everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.


Atheists often talk about how the spaghetti monster disproves God, cause we could have been formed by it. This is not analogous completely, but it makes an important point. That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random. But, it's still the point that it's arbitrary, like the spaghetti monster, to say intelligence is necessary.

Now, It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not necessarily fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been)
So we have the spaghetti monster on the one side and the bike on the other, ha.

In broader terms, there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian. perhaps as you were saying, if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily. If that can just be, so can God.

Some people insist there's "something" that just "has" to be. As Ronald Knox put it, you can add as many links and as large as you like to a chain, but at some point you have to have a peg to hang it on, reiterating the point of an infinite chain argument. Some people like to hang their argument on this "thing" that must just be.
it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.

now, the big bang actually helps verify the dogma of God's existence as certainty, because we stop talking about the never ending chain as much. But was there anything before the big bang? We shouldn't assume so, and if scientists are allowed to make presumptive deductions like this based on observations as a degree of proof, inductive while not deductive, the theologian should be able to too.
So, we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next ones then God? Or if it was random chance, is that God? To make God's existence mean anything, that is not God. If you define God as some abstract first cause, you're not defining him as much if it could just be a bunch of particles or random chance.
if God can just be... then particles can just be, or random chance can just occur.
So if particles and random chance are possible, then God's existence isn't proven. Even if we assume nothing before the big bang.


you'd just be stomping your foot saying that a first cause, ie God, can just be without a cause, cause he's the first cause and can't have a cause before him. it's like a leap of logic that's not necessarily warrnated or based on anything we've seen as humans empiracally.

definitive proof would be proving either logically that there was a first cause, beyond particles and random chance. proving that there wasn't anything before the big bang that went back on and on. as of now we just have evidence for God. like if you see a dark spot, you have evidence that it's a shadow and thus would need an object causing it, but it could also be a natural dark spot where the sun don't shine. (no i'm not saying in anyone's behind.....) i think it'd be techincally inductive proof not deductive.


ORDER AND INTELLIGENCE
same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
First, you're arguing that something complex, ie existance, was created by something that would be presumably even mroe complex?
where'd complexity of God come? if God complexity can just be, the universe can.
ockham's razor. The simplest solution would be the most probable.

Order could just means that order happened to occur, if we assume random chance and particles.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything substantial.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. when you look at something complex like a watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.
if life can form from elementary particles, that would eventially give rise to evolution to complexity.



but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it could have just evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?

high order is indicative of "irreducible complexity" see wikipedia, and so inteligent consciousness but not definitively.

----
as a side note... a word on presumptive proof. if a population who has a distinguishing characteristic... say they grow third arms. and the only thing that makes those people different than the population at large is that they believe in God, then it's very good "proof". the flaw in modern atheism is that they say "their mind could be growing the arm and it's related to their belief but that doesn't indicate God". this is true, it's not definitively proven, but the atheistic mindset is not the most obvious. when you see a population, it's the distinguishing thing itself. you could argue the belief is distinguishing, but when something apparently outside occurs, indicates an outside entity, on its face anyway, that's most plausible.
i never hear of flesh growing when it shouldn't on atheists as it does on theists etc. maybe cancer remissions, maybe.
anyway, you could argue that miracles are proof, but, still, why would something complex ie miracles require something even more complex, ie God? This goes with the argument about about order and how it's almost miraclulous…. It's not definitive proof but at least with miracles, it's much closer.
www.nderf.org another presumpive indication of God without explanation.
**remember: you don't presume the least obvious explanation
----

"God as existance". a catharisis so theists can certainly claim God exists. no one would deny existance, rational people anyway. and you can call that God if you want, but it's not saying much[/quote]

[Deb]

I believe that faith is a gift from God. It doesn't just appear out of nowhere. One day I did not have faith, then I did. Absolute faith which grows stronger every day.

I also believe that you cannot prove that God exists to other people. God has proven to me through many supernatural ways and I can tell people about them, even though they cannot be acurately described in human terms but, his existence has been proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. The transformation that has occured to me is visible to other people which makes them think that there is something to this God thing I have found or I should say that he gifted me with.

[Alycin]

Depends on the level of proof you want, and how you define God. But ultimately, if you define God in any meaningful terms, or with substantial level of proof, God's existence cannot be proven.

(The first sentence isn't actually a complete sentence. Never start a sentence with "But" in an essay." you need an "a" in between the words "with" and "sustantial".)

incidentally. I believe in God's existence, but I don't claim it's definitive proof.
the act of faith -- of its very nature -- involves man's free choice libero arbitrio

(Eliminate "incidentally" or capitalize it and follow it with a comma, not a period. In your first sentence, it might be better to spell out "it is" as opposed to using a contraction. Always start sentences with capital letters and end them with proper punctuation.)


Apply the above to the rest of your essay, as well.

[Hirsap]

[quote name='Deb' post='1471215' date='Mar 1 2008, 04:17 AM']I believe that faith is a gift from God. It doesn't just appear out of nowhere. One day I did not have faith, then I did. Absolute faith which grows stronger every day.

I also believe that you cannot prove that God exists to other people. God has proven to me through many supernatural ways and I can tell people about them, even though they cannot be acurately described in human terms but, his existence has been proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. The transformation that has occured to me is visible to other people which makes them think that there is something to this God thing I have found or I should say that he gifted me with. [/quote]

This may be detracting from the original topic somewhat, but nonetheless :

[quote]1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.[/quote] Vatican I [http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#5]

That's not to belittle your personal experience of God as helping your faith, but God's existence can be proven through natural human reason alone, without recourse to Revelation.

[Hirsap]

[quote name='Deb' post='1471215' date='Mar 1 2008, 04:17 AM']I believe that faith is a gift from God. It doesn't just appear out of nowhere. One day I did not have faith, then I did. Absolute faith which grows stronger every day.

I also believe that you cannot prove that God exists to other people. God has proven to me through many supernatural ways and I can tell people about them, even though they cannot be acurately described in human terms but, his existence has been proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. The transformation that has occured to me is visible to other people which makes them think that there is something to this God thing I have found or I should say that he gifted me with. [/quote]

[quote]1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.[/quote] Vatican I [http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#5]

That's not to belittle your personal experiences as helping your faith in God, but nonetheless, His existence can be proven through reason alone without recourse to Revelation.

[S][N]

Conjecture FTW.

Maybe's and theories don't prove nothing lo

[mortify]

If God doesn't exist I'm not sure how anything could exist.

[Deb]

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1471727' date='Mar 1 2008, 06:24 AM']This may be detracting from the original topic somewhat, but nonetheless :

Vatican I [http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#5]

That's not to belittle your personal experience of God as helping your faith, but God's existence can be proven through natural human reason alone, without recourse to Revelation.[/quote]

True. In my case, if god had not revealed himself to me, I would never have found him. I wasn't looking and had rejected him decades before. I believed that something created all but, never really gave it much thought.

[S][N]

[quote name='mortify' post='1472208' date='Mar 2 2008, 09:00 AM']If God doesn't exist I'm not sure how anything could exist.[/quote]

Again...conjecture = fact.

[Deb]

How about....God exists because Jesus said he does?

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Deb' post='1475045' date='Mar 10 2008, 02:55 PM']How about....God exists because Jesus said he does?[/quote]

if you're saying that to believers, then sure.
to an atheist, it doesn't answer the question, because they claim not enough on Jesus being who he said he was, or the bible being true. it's analogous to saying "the bible is true because the bible says it's true"

[Mitchell_b55]

Sorry, Dairygirl, I didn't read this post before commenting. I might do so later. I just saw the title and thought to myself:

[quote]God's existence cannot be proven, but rather can be demonstrated, which is an important distinction. It can be said to be a reasonable proposition, and perhaps more reasonable than not believing in him. Much can be demonstrated and can be demonstrated in a meaningful way. Then again there is always the proposition that God really doesn't exist, but rather is existence itself, that which exists participates in the substance of existence, which is God.[/quote]

I know that sounds like a crazy thing to think, but that was my first thought [i]verbatim et literatim[/i].

Edited March 10, 2008 by petrus_scholasticus

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah i think what you quoted squares well with what i wrote, so i would agree with it. except i wouldn't put too much weight on calling God existance, as my last paragraph in the quote mentioned.

[Mitchell_b55]

I think there is a misunderstanding on why theists say this, but I'm too tired to discuss it right now. My brain hurts.

[Deb]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1475079' date='Mar 10 2008, 04:57 PM']if you're saying that to believers, then sure.
to an atheist, it doesn't answer the question, because they claim not enough on Jesus being who he said he was, or the bible being true. it's analogous to saying "the bible is true because the bible says it's true"[/quote]


I guess you can't prove it then. It all comes back to faith. If an atheist knows about Christ and just blows him off, that is his choice and I guess he will just have to wait til he dies to find out. I would think that if people really look at the miraculous world around them, they would have to come to the conclusion that God exists.

[rkwright]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1475094' date='Mar 10 2008, 04:37 PM']Sorry, Dairygirl, I didn't read this post before commenting. I might do so later. I just saw the title and thought to myself:
I know that sounds like a crazy thing to think, but that was my first thought [i]verbatim et literatim[/i].[/quote]


[quote name='Deb' post='1476267' date='Mar 12 2008, 12:56 PM']I guess you can't prove it then. It all comes back to faith. If an atheist knows about Christ and just blows him off, that is his choice and I guess he will just have to wait til he dies to find out. I would think that if people really look at the miraculous world around them, they would have to come to the conclusion that God exists.[/quote]

How do you two reconcile these beliefs with the Vatican I quote provided by Hisarp above?

[Deb]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1476774' date='Mar 13 2008, 09:48 AM']How do you two reconcile these beliefs with the Vatican I quote provided by Hisarp above?[/quote]

Catechism,

Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm#11"]11[/url][/sup] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God."[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm#12"]12[/url]

Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

[/sup]I can look at the world around me and reason that there is a God. I was given the gift of faith and I believe.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Deb' post='1476775' date='Mar 13 2008, 08:57 AM']Catechism,

Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm#11"]11[/url][/sup] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God."[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm#12"]12[/url]

Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

[/sup]I can look at the world around me and reason that there is a God. I was given the gift of faith and I believe.[/quote]

Yes but.... above you said 'I guess it can't be proven'. I'm not saying faith can be proven, but it seems that God can be proven. Whether we enter into that relationship is another question.

Dairy is asserting that certainty of God cannot be proven.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i'm pretty sure people would argue a fortiori that if the uinverse exists, something caused it... taking the a fortiori argument from the never ending chain to where we are with the big bang. it can be augmented with the cuase and effect thing... of course i'm not sure why you'd assume something had to cause our existance if that cause didn't have an initial cause.

[rkwright]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1476804' date='Mar 13 2008, 10:55 AM']well, i'm pretty sure people would argue a fortiori that if the uinverse exists, something caused it... taking the a fortiori argument from the never ending chain to where we are with the big bang. it can be augmented with the cuase and effect thing... of course i'm not sure why you'd assume something had to cause our existance if that cause didn't have an initial cause.[/quote]

You're following the argument well to that point; the next line says that the infinite regress is impossible. So there must be an uncaused cause. That uncaused cause is God.

Edited March 13, 2008 by rkwright