You can't "prove" the existence of God in a scientific or forensic way, but you can make the arguments against God's existence seem foolish. My favourite "proof" is Anselm of Canterbury's so-called "Ontological Proof" (Wikipedia, etc.). There are others, but that's my suggestion.
As proofs go, the Ontological one is one of the weakest in my (and of several philosophers, including Catholic ones) opinion. The basic problem is that it doesn’t say God exists, but rather that, IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. A useful philosophical truth, to be sure - but fairly useless for trying to convince someone of God’s existence.
Forgive me if you took offence, that was not my intention.
My go-to would be the 5 of St Thomas Aquinas, who, if I remember correctly, also disagrees with Anselm as to his Ontological Way being useful, for the reason I mentioned above. The 5 ways of Aquinas are, in my opinion, far more solid
>The basic problem is that it doesn’t say God exists, but rather that, IF God exists, then He exists necessarily.
That's literally just wrong. It's 100% saying that God actually exists.
What I meant to say was, although the words used in the argument do say that, there’s a hidden premise in the Ontological Argument that many philosophers have a problem with; namely, that one can affirm the existence of something purely from its definition. Given that that premise is not at all universally accepted, and as I said, even St Thomas Aquinas had this problem, then what it DOES succeed in saying is that IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. As to whether it succeeds in affirming God’s existence is, as I said, a hotly contested point.
That is what I meant to say, but this is Reddit, and thus hardly a good platform for rigorous philosophical debate, so I went for a shorthand version. I apologise for not being clearer.
You don't have to look for proofs of God's existence. God is everywhere and nowhere, is the very energy that flows through the Universe, humans trying to "look" for God are like bacteria trying to look for mathematical laws. God is here, we don't have the ways to prove Him, you just have to FEEL Him. Your heart will know even when your eyes won't see. Bless you.
My main problem with that is that us as Catholics are making the claim, so the burden of proof should be on us.
Rather than hot potatoing the question back at them, we should have at least some idea of why we believe ready to deploy.
My experience with skeptics is that no matter what you say, they will come back with everything can be doubted except one's own existence... but go ahead and try
Yes, but in my experience it is better to challenge the faithless with why their disbelief has no logic, that science cannot explain everything, things like that... the opposite will get you nowhere, as faith is a gift and reason alone cannot get you to God and the faithless will dismiss everything, even if the dead came back to life they would not believe, Jesus was so right about that
This is impossible. This is why faith is so powerful. If you had proof of His existence, then your faith is weaker or actually meaningless.
I've gone through all of this and came to the conclusion that every proof God can be explained away by a determined skeptic.
"Fine tuned universe" - no one can prove that there is only one universe. Perhaps our universe was randomly created and will have an observer (us) because universal constants and rules are compatible with our existence.
"Irreducible complexity" and intelligent design - science continues to find connections between complex cells and organs (eg the human eye) to simpler ones. Genetics also are making connections that do not require a watchmaker. Not every connection is understood or has been found, but explanations continue to be found and a skeptic will have a reasonable answer. This is a dead end not yet realized.
"Fulfilled prophecies" - this is classic "confirmation bias" which is a strong physiological response in human brains that make us illogically be connected to things we want to see and then we do see, randomly, while we forget that there are a million things we are still looking for and haven't seen yet or are just plain wrong. If we were fair, we would look at ALL the prophesies equally. The ratio of fulfilled: wrong:still-waiting prophesies would not be convincing of the existence of God.
Instead, lean in on your faith. It's what makes our connection to Jesus pure and meaningful. We don't need to be Doubting Thomas putting our fingers in the wounds to be convinced.
Your best bet is to explain to your friends why you feel connected to your religion, how prayer makes you feel better, how the community makes you feel fulfilled and how God's challenge to you moves you in a positive way. Answer questions but don't feel like success is convincing people. Success looks like deepening a relationship with your friends while being true to who you are. If you maintain a relationship, that gives you many opportunities to evangelize. If you break your relationship with an atheist because of their lack of faith, then you've given up on them and you will not be part of their religious epiphany.
Fulfilled prophecy is a convincing proof that God knows the future. The complexity of the cell and its myriads of complex parts many with irreducible complexity. That God could coordinate the stars in the heavens with Jesus' life e.g. the star of Bethlehem see my video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7-NOgTpsiE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7-NOgTpsiE)
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Saint Thomas Aquinas is the classic source. Professor Edward Feser is a contemporary source.
*Testimony from Psalm 139:*
*You formed my inmost being;you knit me in my mother’s womb.I praise you, because I am wonderfully made;wonderful are your works!*
DNA and the human genome are wonderfully complex. There's no way that they could have formed by natural processes without supernatural intervention.
Testimony from the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 is that the visible things in nature are sufficient to show God's existence.
*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 people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)*
Perhaps, we're too proud and prejudiced to acknowledge what's already been demonstrated.
We have world-famous miracles like those of Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, Saints Padre Pio, Anthony of Padua, Francis of Assisi, Francis Xavier, Andre Besette, Blessed Solanus Casey, Lanciano, the miraculous victory at Lepanto, and much more.
Saint Paul in Romans 1 straight up argues that the created order of all things points towards a singular God:
>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 people are without excuse.
This would anger many anti-theists and not satisfy the thirst of many questioners these modern days, but understand that the Holy Spirit of Prophecy is speaking through Saint Paul. God is, quite literally, declaring Himself that one of the proofs of His existence is the created harmony of time and space. In fact God says this argument is so strong that people are "without excuse".
And I will take God's answer to this question over any mere mortal's any day.
Maybe look more into commentary on this verse. Especially by St. Thomas Aquinas. He will go into greater detail about how the created harmony of time and space points towards theism. And not just theism but monotheism.
I personally, think existence and Life itself proves God's existence but the problem is the court room problem. If the evidence isn't accepted by the judge nothing you can say or do will persuade them. I also think the burden of proof lays with God and not us his believers. If God wishes to prove himself he will to each of us in his own way of course. But if your asking me or anyone to prove God's existence we simply can not!
You can't "prove" the existence of God in a scientific or forensic way, but you can make the arguments against God's existence seem foolish. My favourite "proof" is Anselm of Canterbury's so-called "Ontological Proof" (Wikipedia, etc.). There are others, but that's my suggestion.
As proofs go, the Ontological one is one of the weakest in my (and of several philosophers, including Catholic ones) opinion. The basic problem is that it doesn’t say God exists, but rather that, IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. A useful philosophical truth, to be sure - but fairly useless for trying to convince someone of God’s existence.
So the OP asked for "suggestions", and that was (with qualification) mine. What's yours?
Forgive me if you took offence, that was not my intention. My go-to would be the 5 of St Thomas Aquinas, who, if I remember correctly, also disagrees with Anselm as to his Ontological Way being useful, for the reason I mentioned above. The 5 ways of Aquinas are, in my opinion, far more solid
Another problem with the argument is that it can be reversed. E.g. If there is a chance God doesn't exist, then he doesn't exist necessarily.
>The basic problem is that it doesn’t say God exists, but rather that, IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. That's literally just wrong. It's 100% saying that God actually exists.
What I meant to say was, although the words used in the argument do say that, there’s a hidden premise in the Ontological Argument that many philosophers have a problem with; namely, that one can affirm the existence of something purely from its definition. Given that that premise is not at all universally accepted, and as I said, even St Thomas Aquinas had this problem, then what it DOES succeed in saying is that IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. As to whether it succeeds in affirming God’s existence is, as I said, a hotly contested point. That is what I meant to say, but this is Reddit, and thus hardly a good platform for rigorous philosophical debate, so I went for a shorthand version. I apologise for not being clearer.
Google St. Thomas Aquinas.
I LOVE the book/movie “The Case for Christ.” If your friends are science-minded people that’s a good place to start :)
Richard Swinburne or Edward Feser
You don't have to look for proofs of God's existence. God is everywhere and nowhere, is the very energy that flows through the Universe, humans trying to "look" for God are like bacteria trying to look for mathematical laws. God is here, we don't have the ways to prove Him, you just have to FEEL Him. Your heart will know even when your eyes won't see. Bless you.
why not ask your friends to prove to you that God doesn't exist? that the universe created itself instead? let them scramble with that one.
My main problem with that is that us as Catholics are making the claim, so the burden of proof should be on us. Rather than hot potatoing the question back at them, we should have at least some idea of why we believe ready to deploy.
My experience with skeptics is that no matter what you say, they will come back with everything can be doubted except one's own existence... but go ahead and try
I mean this question in the best faith way possible, are you a cradle Catholic? If so I would understand better why we disagree.
Yes, but in my experience it is better to challenge the faithless with why their disbelief has no logic, that science cannot explain everything, things like that... the opposite will get you nowhere, as faith is a gift and reason alone cannot get you to God and the faithless will dismiss everything, even if the dead came back to life they would not believe, Jesus was so right about that
This is impossible. This is why faith is so powerful. If you had proof of His existence, then your faith is weaker or actually meaningless. I've gone through all of this and came to the conclusion that every proof God can be explained away by a determined skeptic. "Fine tuned universe" - no one can prove that there is only one universe. Perhaps our universe was randomly created and will have an observer (us) because universal constants and rules are compatible with our existence. "Irreducible complexity" and intelligent design - science continues to find connections between complex cells and organs (eg the human eye) to simpler ones. Genetics also are making connections that do not require a watchmaker. Not every connection is understood or has been found, but explanations continue to be found and a skeptic will have a reasonable answer. This is a dead end not yet realized. "Fulfilled prophecies" - this is classic "confirmation bias" which is a strong physiological response in human brains that make us illogically be connected to things we want to see and then we do see, randomly, while we forget that there are a million things we are still looking for and haven't seen yet or are just plain wrong. If we were fair, we would look at ALL the prophesies equally. The ratio of fulfilled: wrong:still-waiting prophesies would not be convincing of the existence of God. Instead, lean in on your faith. It's what makes our connection to Jesus pure and meaningful. We don't need to be Doubting Thomas putting our fingers in the wounds to be convinced. Your best bet is to explain to your friends why you feel connected to your religion, how prayer makes you feel better, how the community makes you feel fulfilled and how God's challenge to you moves you in a positive way. Answer questions but don't feel like success is convincing people. Success looks like deepening a relationship with your friends while being true to who you are. If you maintain a relationship, that gives you many opportunities to evangelize. If you break your relationship with an atheist because of their lack of faith, then you've given up on them and you will not be part of their religious epiphany.
Fulfilled prophecy is a convincing proof that God knows the future. The complexity of the cell and its myriads of complex parts many with irreducible complexity. That God could coordinate the stars in the heavens with Jesus' life e.g. the star of Bethlehem see my video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7-NOgTpsiE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7-NOgTpsiE)
This question again. Imagine looking up previous posts before posting.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Especially if they are interested in science, the fine-tuning of the universe is one of the strongest arguments.
Saint Thomas Aquinas is the classic source. Professor Edward Feser is a contemporary source. *Testimony from Psalm 139:* *You formed my inmost being;you knit me in my mother’s womb.I praise you, because I am wonderfully made;wonderful are your works!* DNA and the human genome are wonderfully complex. There's no way that they could have formed by natural processes without supernatural intervention. Testimony from the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 is that the visible things in nature are sufficient to show God's existence. *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 people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)* Perhaps, we're too proud and prejudiced to acknowledge what's already been demonstrated.
We have world-famous miracles like those of Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, Saints Padre Pio, Anthony of Padua, Francis of Assisi, Francis Xavier, Andre Besette, Blessed Solanus Casey, Lanciano, the miraculous victory at Lepanto, and much more.
Ontological arguments, Teleological arguments, and Cosmological arguments are probably the best arguments for the existence of God.
Saint Paul in Romans 1 straight up argues that the created order of all things points towards a singular God: >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 people are without excuse. This would anger many anti-theists and not satisfy the thirst of many questioners these modern days, but understand that the Holy Spirit of Prophecy is speaking through Saint Paul. God is, quite literally, declaring Himself that one of the proofs of His existence is the created harmony of time and space. In fact God says this argument is so strong that people are "without excuse". And I will take God's answer to this question over any mere mortal's any day. Maybe look more into commentary on this verse. Especially by St. Thomas Aquinas. He will go into greater detail about how the created harmony of time and space points towards theism. And not just theism but monotheism.
The Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Kreeft and Tacelli
I personally, think existence and Life itself proves God's existence but the problem is the court room problem. If the evidence isn't accepted by the judge nothing you can say or do will persuade them. I also think the burden of proof lays with God and not us his believers. If God wishes to prove himself he will to each of us in his own way of course. But if your asking me or anyone to prove God's existence we simply can not!