browntoven

Hey all. Some questions for our Catholics out there:

1) Can God be proven to exist?
2) If God can, how? Empirically, Philosophical, or by another means?
3) Please give a brief list of the main arguments in the above areas. ie. Argument from Design etc. etc.
4) If God cannot, just say so.

I need a little break from fundies. Comments from all welcome.

Spitfire

1. That depends on what you are willing to call proof.

2. Philosophically, primarily. It is vain to demand signs, visions, miracles and other kinds of empirical evidence when God has called us to believe and have faith - "Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed."

3. Okay, you asked for it, here you go, but it's not an easy read: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100200.htm

Basically, faith is the most important thing. Although one can argue philosophically that there is evidence of God's existence, philosoph is no substitute for faith. We cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste God, yet we must believe that he exists, that he hears our prayers, that he is present in the blessed sacrament, and that he will make good on all his promises to us. But, for Catholics, faith is only the beginning. It is good to believe but then you must also willingly demonstrate that you believe.

I'm sure Chili will be along shortly for a totally different take on all this.

Biff the unclean

Why do we have the constant refrain on these boards of Christians implying that Atheists have some different standard of proof?
We have exactly the same standards that Christians have.
Why do Christians suspend their own standards when the subject of God comes up?

browntoven

thnx for the link. Argument from motion is a new one for me.

on second thought, sounds like a variation of 1st Cause?

David B

Those Heaven's Gate dudes pwned most catholics on the faith and belief front.

David B (has yet to be convinced that faith is a good idea)

scisyhp

I consider something that can be tested scientifically to be proof, anything else is purely speculation.

laca

I am not a Catholic but I feel I can answer some of your questions.

1. Humans still can not prove that God does not exist, but also they can not give scientific proof that God exists.
As a result of this all humans are religious because they have to BELIEVE either in God’s existence or in God’s nonexistence.

David B

Except the agnostics, of course.

But, more seriously, I don't think you can prove logically that there is, or is not a god(s), but then you can't logically disprove solipsism.

OTOH, one can pick up a grasp of the world as it exists, and note that the old razor suggests no god. As does the failure of an allegedly omniscient, omnipotent being concerned with the world to act for what could reasonably called good, ar against what could be reasonably called bad.

Claiming that atheists and theists are somehow equally religious is perhaps not the brightest claim I've ever come across.

David B

laca

You see that’s the difference between those who were educated by ( for example parents or religion ) to be modest or humble and those who were trained to be “winners” in social Darwinistic, primitive capitalistic and materialistic competitive society without clear moral criteria
Those modest don’t have problem to respect others which is much more difficult for social Darwinistic “winners”.

David B

Respecting others is one thing.

Respecting ideas like religious people and non religious people are equally believers is something else.

I'd point out that it is somewhat immodest of you to presume to know (which you imply) how I was educated and brought up.

And I'd also point out that your post is hardly a model of respecting other people, viz - me.

I tend to attack ideas while respecting people.

Sometimes this ideal becomes difficult to maintain.

David B