Just a quick poll.
Just a quick poll.
I voted yes. However this is a knowledge from faith and not empirical data. It is known by those who are receptive to His presence…To those others who fail to see they find faith in other gods. ( money, idols, job status, material goods, etc.)
The existence of God can be known through faith, but it can also be known through reason alone.
You could trace all of creation back to the Big Bang. You cannot comprehend something like the universe…reality itself simply starting. You CAN however comprehend nothing existing where the universe now is. You CAN comprehend nothing simply well “starting.” The universe couldn’t simply begin without a God to create it and jump start it and SUSTAIN it. Whenever my faith is feeling a little shaky, I go through that tract. Then I look over every religion and see that…well this paints the picture
Reason + Faith = Catholicism
It is very difficult to deny the existence of God. Atheists have never been able to adequately explain the existence of objective moral values without God’s existence. Some do reject them but most of us know deep down that they do exist.
Also, the beginning of the universe screams out for a Creator. The non-theist has been left with the obsurd position that the universe popped into existence literally out of nothing! This is a very hard pill to swallow. So yes, I do feel that deep down at some level, all of humanity knows that God exists, and someday will be accountable to Him.
Thomas Aquinas tried to give three good arguments against every theological position he held. On the existence of God he could only find two, the problem of evil and the fact that natural science can explain the world without reference to God.
Aquinas’s thinking hasn’t really been bettered, though the second point is now even more obvious than it was in the Middle Ages. I wouldn’t say that either point has been completely resolved. In my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted) I give a lot of largely weak arguments that you will commonly hear atheists use. However you can give a weak argument for a strong position. Atheists are generally quite easy to refute, atheism less so. It shares with Catholicism the distinction of being the only philosophical position on religion with any intellectual credibility.
I would offer Romans 1:18-32
The wrath 13 of God 14 is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.19 For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts 15 for the mutual degradation of their bodies.25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.29 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips30 and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.31 They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.32 Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Men do not have to persuade themselves that there is a God. They have to try to persuade themselves that there is no God. And no one yet, who has attained to such a temporary persuasion, has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea of a God; they endeavor to grow out of it.
- Radio Replies Volume One: God’s existence known by reason
Pascal says that there are two types of men, those who are afraid to lose God, and those who are afraid that they might find Him.
Thanks to everyone who participated.
To those who voted yes I would ask how can this be the case when so many perfectly reasonable and rational scientists not only reject the suggestion but don’t even believe in Gods existance? If this was put before a court of law would the case for Gods existance be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? What would the balance of expert opinion be? I would hope that it would be that it is a matter of personal faith and not something that can be said to be known.
The existence of “God” can be known by reason (as all great ancient philosophers demonstrated), but the identity of God beyond it being the “First Cause” and Absolute Being can’t be known outside of Faith.
As for rational scientists not believing in God, that isn’t evidence that God isn’t provable by reason. Quite frankly, many scientists lack the philosophical training and understanding to follow logic to the conclusion of a God. They are incredibly skilled at what they do, but their focus is so utterly narrow that they have little skill outside of it in terms of utilizing reason.
As for whether or not God could be proven in a court of law, if the jury and judge understood philosophical reason the existence of God would certainly be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Of course we’ve had juries that have let off people against whom their was solid DNA evidence, simply because they didn’t understand DNA.
Peace and God bless!
I would hope that it would be that it is a matter of personal faith and not something that can be said to be known.
I’m curious why you would think that? I am of the firm belief science cannot disprove God. I think Natural Law is God’s Law. God may use nature to enact His will, or He may use the supernatural.
Does the newest explaination theory about Exodus refute God? So what if it were a volcano (Santorini) was the cause of most or all of the events to explain those events. To me it just expains (possibly) how God manifested freeing Israel from Egypt.
I think the same for the Big Bang and the creation of the universe. I think He would use what we have lately determined as the “natural” order of things. Could He have snapped his spiritual fingers and made the light from a distant galaxy reach Earth instantaneously instead of the thousands of light years scientist say are required? Sure, but I do not know why He would circumvent the Natural Law. It can’t be proven either way as far as we understand things now, but my faith can accept both possibilities.
Species evolution is a bit harder to reconcile to a degree. Science has not definatively proven a “missing link” between the many hominid species and humans. I don’t think they will, becasue I happen to think we were a Created Being, not an evolutionary one. The church has held out the possibility of eveolution, but as far as I have read, they do not subscribe to it.
I think God can be known, and is known to many beyond just on faith. Everything is proof to me. From a cloud to a tree, to humanity. From the micro to the macro. Many things are still a mystery, but the scientific explainations can only confirm how, rather than if.
I honestly don’t see how he couldn’t exist.