The search for Proof of God

[Thomas]

What the atheist who demands proof for the existence of God cannot accept, is that the demand for empirical or 'scientific' (both metaphysics and theology are sciences) proof is a categorical error, as God is not a discrete entity within the physical universe but the transcendent actuality of all things.

 

[Bloodshot]

What the atheist who demands proof for the existence of God cannot accept, is that the demand for empirical or 'scientific' (both metaphysics and theology are sciences) proof is a categorical error, as God is not a discrete entity within the physical universe but the transcendent actuality of all things.

Just to be clear, are you talking about YHWH specifically or gods in general? Not all claim to be prime.

 

[Thomas]

"It is good to keep this in mind if one really wants to discuss the search for God, or simply the issue of whether there is a God to be sought. Any search, if it is to be successful, must be conducted in a manner fitted to the reality one is looking for...

"If one is really to seek "proof" one way or the other regarding the reality of God, one must recall that what one is seeking is a particular experience, one wholly unlike an encounter with some mere finite object of cognition or some particular thing that might be found among other things. One is seeking an ever deeper communion with a reality that at once exceeds and underlies all other experiences...

"All the great faiths ... clearly teach that there is no approach to the knowledge of God that does not involve turning the mind and the will toward the perception of God in all things and of all things in God. This is the path of prayer – contemplative prayer, that is, as distinct from simple prayers of supplication and thanksgiving – which is a specific discipline of thought, desire, and action, one that frees the mind from habitual prejudices and appetites, and allows it to dwell in the gratuity and glory of all things. As an old monk on Mount Athos once told me, contemplative prayer is the art of seeing reality as it truly is; and, if one has not yet acquired the ability to see God in all things, one should not imagine that one will be able to see God in himself."
(David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God, Yale University Press, 2013, p319-320)

 

[Bloodshot]

I'd also like to point out the distinction between those who seek proof, and those who seek reasons to favour theological explanations over scientific ones.

 

[Thomas]

Just to be clear, are you talking about YHWH specifically or gods in general? Not all claim to be prime.

I'd say the Prime God – as understood in the Abrahamic and Hindu traditions, for example.

And also, broadly speaking, of 'The One' of Neoplatonism, or the Buddha/Buddha-nature ...

 

[Thomas]

I'd also like to point out the distinction between those who seek proof, and those who seek reasons to favour theological explanations over scientific ones.

Not sure I follow?

Working backwards, the Cosmological Argument and/or Argument from Contingency are scientific arguments for the existence of God in principle ...

Theological explanations would add a gloss regarding a given deity ...

And finally any 'proof' of God would be experiential and subjective, and therefore not empirically determinable or even theologically necessary.

 

[RJM]

those who seek reasons to favour theological explanations over scientific ones.

I get the point, but since you raise the issue would like to know where you perceive that happening here on these forums?

 

[Bloodshot]

I get the point, but since you raise the issue would like to know where you perceive that happening here on these forums?

I've been asking for this for quite a while.

When I look at our universe and my understanding of it, i do not see a god-shaped hole.

I'm by no means closed to the idea of gods, but i don't see where or how explanations invoking them add explanatory power.

And not an atheist either by the way.

 

[Bloodshot]

I'd say the Prime God – as understood in the Abrahamic and Hindu traditions, for example.

Some Hindu schools, others have Brahman as a prime substance? And gods as emergent, just like us. I'm particularly fond of Indra's journeys and role changes, a lot to be learned there.

 

[Bloodshot]

Not sure I follow?

Working backwards, the Cosmological Argument and/or Argument from Contingency are scientific arguments for the existence of God in principle ...

Theological explanations would add a gloss regarding a given deity ...

And finally any 'proof' of God would be experiential and subjective, and therefore not empirically determinable or even theologically necessary.

It's roughly the difference between:
Show me god.
And:
Show me why a god is needed to account for something in our universe.

 

[RJM]

I've been asking for this for quite a while.

When I look at our universe and my understanding of it, i do not see a god-shaped hole.

I'm by no means closed to the idea of gods, but i don't see where or how explanations invoking them add explanatory power.

And not an atheist either by the way.

Sorry but the fact you don't believe in any God (or spiritual existence) beyond material nature, does not justify your observation that folks on this forum:

seek reasons to favour theological explanations over scientific ones.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, where do you find posts on this forum seeking to favour theological explanations over scientific ones?

The posts I'm reading suggest not that science is wrong, but that it may be limited when applied to 'spiritual' effects that are not limited by nature, time and space. Are you implying that anyone who explores that possibility is trying to favour theological explanations over scientific ones?

EDIT: In fact real science backs out at that point and says "I don't know"

 

[Bloodshot]

Sorry but the fact you don't believe in and God does not justify your observation that folks on this forum:

Eh? I clearly stated not an atheist.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, where do you find posts on this forum seeking to favour theological explanations over scientific ones?

The issue of consciousness is one where supernatural explanations often come up.

And yes, when people say things like "science will never be able to explain x, it requires the supernatural".

 

[RJM]

Eh? I clearly stated not an atheist.

ok

The issue of consciousness is one where supernatural explanations often come up.

so ...?

And yes, when people say things like "science will never be able to explain x, it requires the supernatural".

Who on this forum says science will never explain X, it requires the supernatural?

Science may one day be able to explain it.

Repeat my edit to #11:

The posts I'm reading suggest not that science is wrong, but that it may be limited when applied to 'spiritual' effects that are not limited by nature, time and space. Are you implying that anyone who explores that possibility is trying to favour theological explanations over scientific ones?

In fact real science backs out at that point and says "I don't know"

 

[RJM]

@Bloodshot
I get your drift, but you seem to be addressing a 'science denial' ideology you have perceived, but not the actual posters on this forum?

 

[Bloodshot]

@Bloodshot
I get your drift, but you seem to be addressing a 'science denial' ideology you have perceived, but not the actual posters on this forum?

I'd call it more like "science exclusion" from certain topics.

Regardless, is the distinction clear?

 

[RJM]

It's roughly the difference between:
Show me god.
And:
Show me why a god is needed to account for something in our universe.

Regardless, is the distinction clear?

Ok.

Again I'm not sure anyone here is making that argument?

It seems more nuanced, to me? It's constant noisy demands for evidence from the materialist atheist side, not the allowance that at this stage no proper scientific experiments can be conducted. It leaves a "we don't know" because our explorations are limited to nature: time and space conditions. Math and science doesn't go there.

Mathematics breaks down at the time/space singularity.

 

[Bloodshot]

It seems more nuanced, to me? It's constant noisy demands for evidence from the materialist atheist side, not the allowance that at this stage no proper scientific experiments can be conducted. It leaves a "we don't know" because our explorations are limited to nature: time and space conditions. Math and science doesn't go there.

I agree it's more nuanced, but I was trying to establish a starting point really and make my position clear, because it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.

To be fair i don't see much evidence of people demanding proof of god on here either, but hey ho.

 

[RJM]

To be fair i don't see much evidence of people demanding proof of god on here either, but hey ho.

Hold the thought, lol

 

[wil]

Isn't saying that the proof of G!d will not be found in a materialistic world an indication that monotheists must also accept multiple God's?

Ive always liked the quote that the atheist only believes in one less G!d than the monotheist...just one less.

 

[Longfellow]

What the atheist who demands proof for the existence of God cannot accept, is that the demand for empirical or 'scientific' (both metaphysics and theology are sciences) proof is a categorical error, as God is not a discrete entity within the physical universe but the transcendent actuality of all things.

They are encouraged in that by people trying to prove that God exists.