Can You Prove that God exists?

[johnp.]

Hello Mike.

Blaise Pascal was wrong then.

I wouldn't use is as an apologetic, only because the atheist doesn't believe that he has anything to gain/lose in the first place.

Man is at emnity with his Maker and one cannot war against Someone one doesn't believe in. Man knows more than he admits.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Rom 1:20.

We should evangelise with this in mind.

john.

 

[Jim1999]

My simple answer to this question is no we cannot prove that God either exists or does not exist. Even in theology it takes four postulations to consider the question, and not one argument alone settles the matter.

Internally, I know that God is. I sense His presence, and even when I don't sense His presence, I believe the Word, and that tells me that God is.

For this reason, I believe that the very best witness to God is our personal testimony. Others may argue with me on creation, but they can only question my personal witness.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

I wondered how long before this discussion invoked the names of Aquinas and co.
Thomas's five ways presumed faith. The scholastic method, though, necessitates that if you're going to talk about something you must first ask Does it exist? and then What is it?

Contemporary analytic philosophers will concede that you cannot prove God exists in the sense of it being strongly rational, but most Christian philosopher will of course say it is weakly rational. In other words, it is not illogical to believe it. This goal of showing that Christianity is weakly rational goes in line with Thomas and others in the tradition.

Unfortunately, there is this notion of "thomism" that parades around the idea that you can metatphysically prove God's existence and man's reason was untainted by the fall. Thomas himself would disagree with both notions.

 

[Humblesmith]

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Rom 1:20.

We should evangelise with this in mind.

john.

I especially like the "clearly seen" and "understood" part. Note that it does not say "felt internally, not based on logic or reason." In fact, it says just the opposite: understood reasonably.

FP: see your private messages.

 

[James_Newman]

With no proof.

He had plenty of evidence from a God in whom he had faith.

But, as far as proof goes, this event still does not stand, as it can be picked apart by those who don't want to believe it.

There is a big difference between "evidence" and "proof".

I can prove to you that my Toyota Supra is black, unless you want to get into the sort of philosophical argument of "what is black?" Or, "Is black really black?"

However, I cannot prove to you that one day I placed 5th at Talladega. I did. I can show you evidence. But, I cannot prove it. I can show you enough evidence that you would believe that it's true, unless you are an ultra-skeptic.

Well it would take a lot of faith to believe you placed 5th in a toyota supra.

 

[Humblesmith]

I wondered how long before this discussion invoked the names of Aquinas and co.
Thomas's five ways presumed faith. The scholastic method, though, necessitates that if you're going to talk about something you must first ask Does it exist? and then What is it?

Contemporary analytic philosophers will concede that you cannot prove God exists in the sense of it being strongly rational, but most Christian philosopher will of course say it is weakly rational. In other words, it is not illogical to believe it. This goal of showing that Christianity is weakly rational goes in line with Thomas and others in the tradition.

Unfortunately, there is this notion of "thomism" that parades around the idea that you can metatphysically prove God's existence and man's reason was untainted by the fall. Thomas himself would disagree with both notions.

Whaaa? My reading of the Summa shows Thomas only assuming sense perceptions. But I'll have to go back and check.......it's quite lengthy.

 

[J.D.]

We read in Romans 1 "when they knew God". In what way did, or do, men (I take the word "men" in the context to mean "every person") "know" God? Intuitively?
Let's say the atheist, at some deeper level, actually knows there is a God, but in his suppression of the truth in unrighteousness, he simply denies the existence of God.
Well then our problem in apologetics is that we are trying to "prove" something which God has already proven, for "God hath showed it unto them", already.

Therein lies the reason why the atheist demands that we "prove" the existence of God using - not scripture - but science, reason, and logic. They essentialy trick us into meeting them on their terms.

Our task, then, is not to construct an undefeatable rational argument; but rather is to display the teaching of scripture to them, which we hold to be "the power of God unto salvation".

We know that the Biblical God is fully rational and logical. But can the unbeliever believe that? He already knows the truth, but he does not love the truth - "they received not the love of the truth" (2 Thess 2:10).

Shouldn't we refuse their demand that we engage them on their home turf? Shouldn't we demand that they meet us on ours? Paul told the Athenians: "God hath commanded all men everywhere to repent". If God were to open their blind eyes, they will see and accept not only the material evidence of God, but they will see the rationality of God and the irrationality of their former blindness; and they will see Christ as the "Logos", the expression of God's reason and logic, the only rational God knowable.

Now, I'm not advocating defeatism. I'm not saying that debating a determined atheist is a waste of time. Just the opposite. If we believe that God has the power to open their eyes, then we always have hope. Even those spitting, nashing God-haters can be changed by the power of God. Let's debate them; but let's be careful as we debate to insist that if they are to ever understand the God of the Bible, they must meet Him on HIS terms. He will not meet them on their terms. If they say, as that girl-atheist-in-charge said, "I would rather go to hell than worship a God like that", then so be it. Her own words have justified God.

 

[Humblesmith]

Scripture commands us to give a reasoned defense:

2 Tim. 2:24-25: "...in humility correcting those who are in opposition..."
1 Peter 3:15: "...always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you..."
Col. 4: 5-6: "...that you may know how you ought to answer each one."
Phil. 1:17: "I am appointed to the defense of the gospel."
Jude 3: " ... exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith..."
Titus 1:7: A leader must be able to "exhort and convict those who contradict."

Christians believed for 1600 years or more that we could prove God's existence and logically prove sound doctrine. Sure, the bible was a large part of that, and we should still use it. This idea that faith is separate from reason was begun by non-Christian philosophers, and brought into the church from outside. (the modern father of it was a pantheist named Schleiermacher.)

But today many christians feel that our faith is built upon a subjective internal feeling. They do this because they feel it is irrefutable, and they can then hold to faith without being challenged. The problem is that if we disconnect our faith from logic, and make it untestable, then we have no basis for saying Christ is true, and the faith of the false teachers and other religions is not true.

Yes, our salvation is through faith, but it is a reasonable faith, one based on truth. And truth can be verified....it is never afraid of scholarship. The apostles based their faith in the ressurrection.......of which they were eyewitnesses. They based their faith in empiracal evidence, which they had seen with their own eyes.

 

[J.D.]

Scripture commands us to give a reasoned defense:

2 Tim. 2:24-25: "...in humility correcting those who are in opposition..."
1 Peter 3:15: "...always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you..."
Col. 4: 5-6: "...that you may know how you ought to answer each one."
Phil. 1:17: "I am appointed to the defense of the gospel."
Jude 3: " ... exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith..."
Titus 1:7: A leader must be able to "exhort and convict those who contradict."

Christians believed for 1600 years or more that we could prove God's existence and logically prove sound doctrine. Sure, the bible was a large part of that, and we should still use it. This idea that faith is separate from reason was begun by non-Christian philosophers, and brought into the church from outside. (the modern father of it was a pantheist named Schleiermacher.)

But today many christians feel that our faith is built upon a subjective internal feeling. They do this because they feel it is irrefutable, and they can then hold to faith without being challenged. The problem is that if we disconnect our faith from logic, and make it untestable, then we have no basis for saying Christ is true, and the faith of the false teachers and other religions is not true.

Yes, our salvation is through faith, but it is a reasonable faith, one based on truth. And truth can be verified....it is never afraid of scholarship. The apostles based their faith in the ressurrection.......of which they were eyewitnesses. They based their faith in empiracal evidence, which they had seen with their own eyes.

Some good points there Humblesmith. I need to think about some of those things. But one thing before I sign off for the night - when I got saved, I heard the gospel and believed. What imperical evidence could have led me to that?

Later. :sleeping_2:

 

[Hope of Glory]

Well it would take a lot of faith to believe you placed 5th in a toyota supra.

It was on a motorcycle, actually.

If it had been in a Supra, it would have been first.:thumbs:

 

[Humblesmith]

Ah, I found it. See Summa Theologica, 1.3.4. (this is not the Five Ways)
Here Thomas proves God's existence by showing that existence is the very essence of God. He does so without presuming faith, and without getting tangled in assumptions or infinite regresses.

Much clearer, though, are those such as William Craig's Kalaam Argument, Lewis's work on Morals and his work on Miracles, and Geisler's older work, Christian Apologetics. All of these are excellent proofs for God's existence.

Again, logically proving something does not mean people will actually believe it. We cannot make people want to believe.

 

[Bluefalcon]

Can everyone agree that it is impossible to conceive that in the beginning there was nothing, that nothing always existed before there was something, either the Big Bang or Creation or whatever? If so, this might be a good place to start, and then build on what we know about things moving from order to disorder, and then show from all the good that we see in creation, e.g., air, light, sun, ecosystems, DNA, etc., that what we experience reflects a good and loving super-powerful person, what we may call God, and that if this God is good and loving he should reveal himself in some more precise way, and show that the Bible is and claims to be God's exclusive special revelation. And if not, how did something, and eventually time and all the universe, come out of nothing?

In the end, of course, this doesn't prove God. It can only be used to show the comparatively better explanation for what we have than the explanation of our opponents.

 

[Deacon]

Impossible my friend? I've tried to use that very argument with no success.
As my co-worker/friend in the nuclear side of my job expalins; 'not so in the Quantum world'.
Things apparently pop out of nothing with proper regularity.
...and to confuse matters even more, in Quantum world, time has no real meaning, it's just another dimension.

I've never even tried to grasp the mechanics of Quantum physics; classical Newtonian physics was enough of a struggle for me in college that I fear straining a brain muscle.
But I've read enough to know that there is some semblance of truth in what he says. We live in a strange world.

He seems to have an answer to everything, but what it comes down to is he is facinated by my faith.
As he says, "I've never met anyone who thinks and studies and reasons.... and still has faith."

Our lives are often the only proof that people will see or need, to know that there is a God.
If we're God's children we should show his beauty.
Sadly I often fail and need his (and your) forgiveness.

Rob

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Ac 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

We do have proof God exists. God incarnate is proof God exists. all of creation speaks to evidence of God. His Word is evidence that He exists 1 John 5:13. God has proven himself.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Sorry Hub, we'll have to agree to dis agree. I'm familiar with 1.3.4 but can't see how the point is to prove God's existence without faith. 1.3 comes after his first set of questions about sacred doctrine and its use. He rather clearly says that without revelation some truths revealed by reason may eventually surface but they would be mixed with error. The rest of ST presumes his first arguments.

I'd recommend looking at his discussion of fallen man's noetic abilities to see how rational arguments presume faith. He's pretty clear about it there too.

Other than that I see no need to spat about it. This mythic form of "thomism" is prevalent in the secondary and especially the tertiary literature, but it's a little unfounded. Pascal misses the boat too. He argues about the God of the philosophers vs. the God of Abraham, but Thomas would ask if Pascal had any other candidates than the object of his five ways? The five ways present slivers of truth, but without faith they never can prove that belief in God is strongly rational. They do make a okay case that belief in God is weakly rational even after Kant, IMO.

BJ

 

[veracious]

I personally have proof that God exists: He live within my heart.

Those that are drawn to God will have the Holy Spirit witnessing to them of His existence. So there is no need to try to prove God to the unbeliever who is not drawn to God because he will not believe any "proofs" given to him from scripture or nature no matter how convincing or logical you make it sound.

 

[Watchman]

Can you prove God exists

We do have proof God exists. God incarnate is proof God exists. all of creation speaks to evidence of God. His Word is evidence that He exists 1 John 5:13. God has proven himself.

Yes I agree these are, as far as I know, the best passages that speak to this issue is:
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:(Rom 1:19-20)
It is clear that the existence of God is not just a matter of faith, but it is logical and sensible, and as such, the burden of proof is on the other side.
Because of what God has created, anyone who looks at creation should come to the conclusion of intelligent design.
People do not see God in what is created are willfully ignorant.
They are willfully ignorant because their deeds are evil, they do not want to give an account for their lives to any "God", so there MUST be another explanation for every-things' existence.
IMHO, that's how I see it.

 

[Humblesmith]

The quantum physics stuff only works in the sub-atomic world. Trying to take it out into the world of molecules and larger is totally bogus, and if your friend knows anything about physics, he'll know this. Molecules do not pop into existence naturally, and there's no evidence that even in the quantum world, there are more particles now than than there were at any time in the past. We just can't tell where they are at any given point. Tell your friend to see the work of Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe.

As for Summa 1.3, I will read further. Thanks.

My Friends, we can lead people to faith with reason. One of the most published atheists came out last year and said he had become a theist due to the argument from design.

 

[DQuixote]

Internally, I know that God is. I sense His presence, and even when I don't sense His presence, I believe the Word, and that tells me that God is.

We do have proof God exists. God incarnate is proof God exists. all of creation speaks to evidence of God. His Word is evidence that He exists 1 John 5:13. God has proven himself.

I personally have proof that God exists: He lives within my heart.

......and all God's children said, AMEN!

The verdict is in. HE IS! Case closed, with thanksgiving!

 

[Humblesmith]

Sorry Hub, we'll have to agree to dis agree. I'm familiar with 1.3.4 but can't see how the point is to prove God's existence without faith. 1.3 comes after his first set of questions about sacred doctrine and its use. He rather clearly says that without revelation some truths revealed by reason may eventually surface but they would be mixed with error. The rest of ST presumes his first arguments.

I'd recommend looking at his discussion of fallen man's noetic abilities to see how rational arguments presume faith. He's pretty clear about it there too.

Other than that I see no need to spat about it. This mythic form of "thomism" is prevalent in the secondary and especially the tertiary literature, but it's a little unfounded. Pascal misses the boat too. He argues about the God of the philosophers vs. the God of Abraham, but Thomas would ask if Pascal had any other candidates than the object of his five ways? The five ways present slivers of truth, but without faith they never can prove that belief in God is strongly rational. They do make a okay case that belief in God is weakly rational even after Kant, IMO.

BJ

Sorry, I'm not finding your points. I did find the following:

1.2, Sacred doctrine is a science based on self-evident principles and God's revelation, not on faith.
1.2.1: The statement "God Exists" is "not self evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are known to us."
1.2.2, "The existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us."
1.2.3, this is the five ways, of which I've not heard a refutation here, if my memory is correct.

These are all I see on the subject prior to the Five Ways. But further, I also found the following:
1-2.10.3: the will is not entirely overwhelmed by the passions.
1-2.74.5: Sin is in our reasoning. But this does not say that our reason is totally incapacitated.

As a further note, 1.86.6 specifically addresses the sense perception arguments of Descartes and Kant (if I remember their positions correctly.....which is a big "if")

In any case, I agree, no need to spat about it. If there are other points on this, please let me know. I still hold Thomas to be rather solid. But there are several more modern proofs.....see W. Craig, N. Geisler, H. Ross, C. Lewis, and others.




Jude 3