Can or Should God's Existence be Proven?

[Leonhard]

I'm not sure what this means. I do not believe we have the power or ability to disqualify God from being!

Then the confusion has been mutual, because what you said sounded awfully confusing to me.

Your original phrasing made it seem that if I showed you by natural proof that God exists, then he didn't exist.

We are definitely on the same page that human knowledge of God falls infinitely short of His essence. That's the difference between theology, which can at most only offer very simple truthes about God, and the beatific vision where we see God as he is.

On Earth we can only ever know him by a suitable analogy.

I'm not sure what 'human' certainty is here, and I'm not sure why you (as you seem to) believe that something is only proven when the proof is universally accepted. That seems a rather weak point to make. Yes there are people, even Christians who dispute that we can know that God exists. This has some implications for evangelisation, but it doesn't change that we can prove God's existence and the rejection of those proofs tend to be irrational.

John Martin is a great counter-example. But really there are others. The traffic law for instance. Unless you're severely mentally handicapped, then you can't claim mere ignorance in the court of law. You can be expected to know.

The same holds for God and the moral law. People are culpable for their ostensible ignorance in many cases. And we can debate how much this culpability derives from supernatural inspiration, which I believe is the typical way people come to know God, or natural reason which is sufficient even if the faith it produces isn't iron clad.

At any rate all would be held culpable for not knowing God, because His work is made manifest.

The Catholic Church this also implies that God's existence can be known by reason.

Also, even if our knowledge falls short of what God truly is, we cannot say that what we know is false. Further knowledge, even the beatific vision would not render God not triune, it would on the other hand allow us to see the Trinity as it really is.

That's at least how I'd see what knowledge we can rightfully claim to have about God. Something to be deepened and clarified, but never repudiated.

[robrecht]

Then the confusion has been mutual, because what you said sounded awfully confusing to me.

Your original phrasing made it seem that if I showed you by natural proof that God exists, then he didn't exist.

We are definitely on the same page that human knowledge of God falls infinitely short of His essence. That's the difference between theology, which can at most only offer very simple truthes about God, and the beatific vision where we see God as he is.

On Earth we can only ever know him by a suitable analogy.

I'm not sure what 'human' certainty is here, and I'm not sure why you (as you seem to) believe that something is only proven when the proof is universally accepted. That seems a rather weak point to make. Yes there are people, even Christians who dispute that we can know that God exists. This has some implications for evangelisation, but it doesn't change that we can prove God's existence and the rejection of those proofs tend to be irrational.

John Martin is a great counter-example. But really there are others. The traffic law for instance. Unless you're severely mentally handicapped, then you can't claim mere ignorance in the court of law. You can be expected to know.

The same holds for God and the moral law. People are culpable for their ostensible ignorance in many cases. And we can debate how much this culpability derives from supernatural inspiration, which I believe is the typical way people come to know God, or natural reason which is sufficient even if the faith it produces isn't iron clad.

At any rate all would be held culpable for not knowing God, because His work is made manifest.

The Catholic Church this also implies that God's existence can be known by reason.

Also, even if our knowledge falls short of what God truly is, we cannot say that what we know is false. Further knowledge, even the beatific vision would not render God not triune, it would on the other hand allow us to see the Trinity as it really is.

That's at least how I'd see what knowledge we can rightfully claim to have about God. Something to be deepened and clarified, but never repudiated.

I don't think something is only proven when there is universal assent, but I do believe it is important to understand why some people do not assent to this or that proof. When some Christians insist that an ontological proof for the existence of God is valid and other Christians insist that it is not, I think that can be an interesting discussion.

I apologize if my phrasing was unclear. In the original context I was merely trying to lay the groundwork for a discussion to suggest that an improper understanding of the supernatural, of gods with a small 'g', renders proofs and disproofs and doubts practically irrelevant to the actual question of the existence of God.

[bling]

In a recent thread, robrecht made the following statement in Apologetics 301.



Is this a statement that you agree with or disagree with? Why or why not?

In a way a tree “proves” the existence of God, if you accept a tree as prove, so what “prove” are you talking about?

God seems to be doing everything possible to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective, so did seeing the Red Sea part help that much?

If I have pure “scientific knowledge” of God’s existence do I need “faith” in God’s existence?

Does it help the nonbeliever fulfill his/her earthly objective by extending “faith” in God’s existence?

[Adrift]

In a way a tree “proves” the existence of God, if you accept a tree as prove, so what “prove” are you talking about?

I believe proof in this context is simply evidence and true facts which can sufficiently lead to recognizing the actual existence of God. Usually in the form of philosophical or theological arguments. Science, history, and other avenues of epistemology can help assist in formulating these arguments. This sort of proof probably shouldn't be confused with mathematical proofs which are absolute.

Anyways, that's a loose definition, subject to change, but I think it's one most people will agree with.

God seems to be doing everything possible to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective, so did seeing the Red Sea part help that much?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If I have pure “scientific knowledge” of God’s existence do I need “faith” in God’s existence?

I'm not sure what sort of distinction you're making. Scientific knowledge is largely grounded in a faith of sorts, as far as I can tell.

Does it help the nonbeliever fulfill his/her earthly objective by extending “faith” in God’s existence?

Well, first of all, we should probably figure out if we're using the same definition of faith. I hold to a definition of faith often in line with many Christian philosophers like J.P. Moreland who define it as, "a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true." Or as David Marshall puts it, "faith means courageous trust in an object one has good reason to see as credible" This is in contrast to a sort of blind faith, or a faith that some may hold that is contrary to evidence or good reason.

[Jedidiah]

. . . God seems to be doing everything possible to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective, so did seeing the Red Sea part help that much?

I do not see your point in this post. I do not believe that God is involved in helping individual objectives. God has His own objectives.

[bling]

I do not see your point in this post. I do not believe that God is involved in helping individual objectives. God has His own objectives.

Has God given man a mission statement? (this is always good to have)

Would “Loving God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy” be our Mission statement?

God is Love, but how do we define this Love and measure this Love?

This Godly type Love is defined by Jesus’ words and deeds (you can also use 1 Cor 13 and 1 John 4), so what is that?

Can we measure the “love” one being has for another being by the amount the first being is willing to unselfishly sacrifice for the other being?

Is God this ultimate Lover? Would that “Love” compel even God to make beings that could Love like He Loves (this “Love of God” is totally unselfish [a measure of pure Love] and thus is not for God’s sake at all but is totally for the sake of others)?

So if God is not doing anything for His own sake and everything for the sake of others, would he be expecting or needing anything from man or would God just be trying to give the greatest gift He could give to man?

The reason this “Love” is the most powerful force in all universes is because it compels even God. So to have this Love would make us like God Himself, so why does God not just make us with this Love and place us in heaven?

Are there something God just cannot do: like make another Christ, since Christ was never made but always existed?

Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?

Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?

What does man need that he does not have instinctively in order for man to fulfill this Mission?

Man’s objective seems to be to obtain and grow this Godly type Love to fulfill the mission (statement) of Love God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.

Our “objective” while here on earth is to just accept God’s gift as it was given as pure charity.

God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.

The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….) God hates sin, but does allow it so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity). The problem is always our fulfilling our objective.

[bling]

I believe proof in this context is simply evidence and true facts which can sufficiently lead to recognizing the actual existence of God. Usually in the form of philosophical or theological arguments. Science, history, and other avenues of epistemology can help assist in formulating these arguments. This sort of proof probably shouldn't be confused with mathematical proofs which are absolute.

“…sufficiently lead to recognizing…” is very subjective. The agnostic skeptic might require a mathematical/scientific proof.

I'm not sure what sort of distinction you're making. Scientific knowledge is largely grounded in a faith of sorts, as far as I can tell.

If you can have repeatable results that can only be explained with the existence of a God, I would say you do not need “faith” (trusting) in God’s existence, but you have knowledge of God’s existence.

Well, first of all, we should probably figure out if we're using the same definition of faith. I hold to a definition of faith often in line with many Christian philosophers like J.P. Moreland who define it as, "a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true." Or as David Marshall puts it, "faith means courageous trust in an object one has good reason to see as credible" This is in contrast to a sort of blind faith, or a faith that some may hold that is contrary to evidence or good reason.

Again: “what we have reason to believe is true” or “has good reason to see as credible” is very subjective.
Trusting in a wonderful Father’s Love for needed help should not be that hard and it is something the lowliest mature adult on earth can easily do, so it would be a humbling activity (in contrast to self-reliance). That little humility is needed to accept God’s pure charity (Love).

[Adrift]

“…sufficiently lead to recognizing…” is very subjective. The agnostic skeptic might require a mathematical/scientific proof.

Sure. What's your point?

If you can have repeatable results that can only be explained with the existence of a God, I would say you do not need “faith” (trusting) in God’s existence, but you have knowledge of God’s existence.

Knowing that your results will remain the same based on previous performance is faith.

Again: “what we have reason to believe is true” or “has good reason to see as credible” is very subjective.

So? At least its based on reason rather than blind hopin and prayin.

Trusting in a wonderful Father’s Love for needed help should not be that hard and it is something the lowliest mature adult on earth can easily do, so it would be a humbling activity (in contrast to self-reliance). That little humility is needed to accept God’s pure charity (Love).

A good father offers reasons for his children to trust him through his actions.

I fail to see the point you're driving at with all this.

[bling]

Sure. What's your point?



Knowing that your results will remain the same based on previous performance is faith.




So? At least its based on reason rather than blind hopin and prayin.



A good father offers reasons for his children to trust him through his actions.

I fail to see the point you're driving at with all this.

Knowledge of God’s existence would work against having “Faith” (a trust) in God’s existence and would tend to allow you to put more reliance on self, personally gaining knowledge instead of extending more faith.
Knowledge can show you: “the more you know the more you realize you do not know”, but knowledge of the existence of God could be a stopping point for faith.
As scripture say: “you have to be a fool to say: ‘there is no God’”, so “faith” in the existence of God is extremely easy, but it is very helpful. It is also humbling since the lowliest mature person on erath can belief in a benevolent Creator.

[Adrift]

Knowledge of God’s existence would work against having “Faith” (a trust) in God’s existence and would tend to allow you to put more reliance on self, personally gaining knowledge instead of extending more faith.
Knowledge can show you: “the more you know the more you realize you do not know”, but knowledge of the existence of God could be a stopping point for faith.
As scripture say: “you have to be a fool to say: ‘there is no God’”, so “faith” in the existence of God is extremely easy, but it is very helpful. It is also humbling since the lowliest mature person on erath can belief in a benevolent Creator.

Ok, so as I thought, your definition of faith is not at all the same as my definition of faith, nor the definition of faith that I think we find in scripture. Your definition of faith is a sort of blind hope that God is real, and then stepping out into the void praying that there will be something firm under foot. I don't think that's Biblical, and I think Cerebrum's quote of Romans 1 sort of exemplifies the counter-argument to that sort of blind faith. The Bible tends to teach of a faith that is based on substance; Is based on what can be known about God through either the majesty of his creation or his divine interaction with humanity, and past experience.

[robrecht]

Ok, so as I thought, your definition of faith is not at all the same as my definition of faith, nor the definition of faith that I think we find in scripture. Your definition of faith is a sort of blind hope that God is real, and then stepping out into the void praying that there will be something firm under foot. I don't think that's Biblical, and I think Cerebrum's quote of Romans 1 sort of exemplifies the counter-argument to that sort of blind faith. The Bible tends to teach of a faith that is based on substance; Is based on what can be known about God through either the majesty of his creation or his divine interaction with humanity, and past experience.

I'm not sure if what I am about to say is bling's point or perspective, but it might be. I think the biblical perspective on faith in general, and Paul's perspective in particular is oftentimes much better understood by using the English word 'faithfulness', which implies elements of trust and obedience, and it is not based merely on what can be known about God from an intellectual perspective. I don't mean to suggest that you do not agree with this, but you and bling might be talking past each other if you do disagree.

[Adrift]

I'm not sure if what I am about to say is bling's point or perspective, but it might be. I think the biblical perspective on faith in general, and Paul's perspective in particular is oftentimes much better understood by using the English word 'faithfulness', which implies elements of trust and obedience, and it is not based merely on what can be known about God from an intellectual perspective. I don't mean to suggest that you do not agree with this, but you and bling might be talking past each other if you do disagree.

What is the trust and obedience based on? I don't think I've ever based my trust or obedience on someone or something that did not show itself to be trustworthy or to be obeyed.

[robrecht]

What is the trust and obedience based on? I don't think I've ever based my trust or obedience on someone or something that did not show itself to be trustworthy or to be obeyed.

For me it is based primarily upon the teaching and example of Jesus.

[Adrift]

For me it is based primarily upon the teaching and example of Jesus.

Well there you go.

[robrecht]

Well there you go.

?