A Provable Deity?

[Deleted User]

Hey All,

So, I've observed that lately many in the Orthodox Church are preoccupied with proving the existence of God. To certain evangelizing efforts, I assume, many are searching for ways to prove that our God exists. Here is my question, if we could indeed prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, would he indeed be God? That is, would God indeed by a deity if one could subject his existence to natural laws? Please share your views!

Thanks in advance,
Taio

godislove260

I think God's existence is proven by the many miracles He performed and still performs today with many people...

The thing is it's not us who prove His exitstence, but it's Him who chooses to reveal Himself to us, as He always did...

I think the reason God doesn't just show Himself to the world is the fact that He's so humble that He wants to work through people. Sometimes you can see God in someone who's doing His commandments... It's amazing how loving He is and how He allows His children to partake in His good works...

God Bless

LondonCopt

I don't think it's useful to look for us to prove the existence of God using philosophy or any other such means. BUT, I think it's necessary to know a bit of philosophy to defend our faith, i.e- to be able to refute arguments of others claiming that God doesn't exist.

If you're interested in this, I'd recommend you read the following books:
The Case for a Creator
The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith  (ALL by Lee Strobel)

The books written by HH Pope Shenouda are also good.

If you're genuinely interested in the philosophy of the existence of God (for spiritual benefit to yourself and others), then you may want to read basic philosophical arguments such as the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument.
Hope this is useful,

Matthew

clay

The question was: What does it say about God when we try to prove Him like a Natural phenomena. In other words, do we have a a pantheist God or a transcending God from the proofs we give.

I think the answer is quite obvious, when we read the literature by those who push for evidence (they are not proofs) for God. They usually talk about the mechanics of nature, that point out to a higher intelligence that must by nature be supreme of creation (that is not a comparable force). Problem with that now is that some scientists think that there are million Universes, and we are just the lucky one. There is a nice book called "Parallel Worlds" by Michael Koku.


God is not a constructed idea, so I do share the disbelief in our efforts to use Science to paint a picture of a God. I don't think using Natural Law to depict God makes Him subject to it though if the emphasis is that the Natural Law is subject to Him. I mean, it is our faith that says that the Universe is His creation- so it should tell us something about Him.

I think the best way to approach this is to understand that the notion that there is a god is equal to the supposition that matter is all that there is. This is especially true when we consider the spiritual impact that defies the purpose of social evolution.

I believe there is a huge danger to accept Science as it is today, and use that as a template to evangelise. I am not against Evolution, by the way. What I dislike about science today is that Naturalistic Philosophy and Science have become so closely related, that there is no need to prove by experiments now; all the new conclusions of the Universe seem to be easily constructed by the Philosophy.

God has revealed Himself to those who seek Him. Arguing with Science doesn't really help. Especially when you are yourself arrogant; and definitely when the other person is arrogant.

Christ said people will know His disciples by their love.

Yes, God is a person. The God constructed by science is probably only going to give us a very vague picture of a transcendent God. It might even be closer to Marxism than Christianity. I don't know. I am not a scientist. 

God by definition is the first cause. If something has to have a cause for Him, it would be Himself. It would be a neverending cycle, but because by definitionHe transcends time and space and the Universe, the Natural laws that describe cause and effect do not apply to Him.

As to the original question, I know I did not answer it well. But I see your point, and I think it is only increasing among the Orthodox as we have become more educated and more involved in Western Science; that has been contaminated by upholding naturalism at the expense for the scientific method.

LondonCopt

Clay, you make a very good point, but I have to debate one point (sorry!):

As to the original question, I know I did not answer it well. But I see your point, and I think it is only increasing among the Orthodox as we have become more educated and more involved in Western Science; that has been contaminated by upholding naturalism at the expense for the scientific method.

The idea of proving God's existence isn't a very Western one. Many arguments actually originate from Greek (and hence Alexandrian-Egyptian) schools of thought. Granted, these schools of thought were very keenly pursued by Western thinkers after the Middle Ages. Naturalism is by no means a new idea, but I'm way out of my depth to discuss this topic here...it's way beyond my understanding...sorry I can't help :(

God bless,
Matthew

[Deleted User]

Hey All,

LondonCopt,

Thanks for your response. I actually am a philosophy major in university so I am becoming more aware of these same arguments you mention. I actually read Kant's proof against the teleological, and the cosmological argument. Although I haven't started reading it yet, I recently bought a copy of Strobel's A Case for Christ. I'm glad you recommend; I'm excited to get started. So, you say it is not useful to look to philosophical proofs. Are they not useful in the sense that will ultimately fail? Or, are they not useful simply because our efforts should be directed elsewhere?

Clay,

First, can you describe the terms pantheistic God and transcending God? I'm a bit unclear as to their meaning. Also, what do you mean when you say science has constructed an idea of God? Is this any different from our Judeo-Christian assumptions? I guess I'm unclear as to your argument behind naturalistic philosophy.

Thanks,
Taio

clay

As much as I enjoyed Strobel, I think he has drawn the short straw when it comes to discussing philosophy; or the demarcation of Science and Religion (though, I think he does a reasonable job in showing harmony).

The authors that I have read some excerpts on (and sometimes their books), and seem to tackle logical extensions of your question are: John Lennox (mathematician) , Alister McGrath (philosopher; he has numerous books including Dawkin's God; the Dawkin Confusion lol), Roger Steer’s "Letter To An Influential Atheist", John Haught' “God and the new Atheism” (theologian; however, he  disregards ID, which is staunchly accepted by Strobel) and David Marshall’s “The Truth behind the New Atheism”.

On Naturalism, I think McGrath and Haught is best. 

Here is an extract from Haught's "God and the new Atheism":

“the idea of God functions as anything but a scientific hypothesis for most believers and theologians”

(p42)

   

“In my interpersonal knowledge, …. the evidence that someone loves me is hard to measure, but it can be very real nonetheless. The only way I can encounter the subjective depth of another person is to abandon the objectifying method of science. To treat the otherness and subjectivity of another person as though he or she were just another object in nature is both cognitively and morally wrong. To take account of the evidence of subjective depth that I encounter in the face of another person, I need to adopt a stance of vulnerability. Encounter with another’s personal depth challenges me to put aside the controlling, mastering, objectifying method of natural science……

    Do our new atheists seriously believe, therefore, that if a personal God of infinite beauty and unbounded love actually exists, the “evidence” for this God’s existence could be gathered as cheaply as the evidence for a scientific hypothesis? Even in our ordinary human experience it is other personal subjects that matter most to us, and no amount of scientific expertise can tell us who they really are. Would it be otherwise with God, whom believers experience not as an ordinary “It” but as a supreme “Thou”? If God exists, then interpersonal experience, not the impersonal objectivity of science, would be essential to knowledge of this God. In our everyday existence the love of another person matters more to us than almost anything else, but gathering the “evidence” for that love requires a leap of trust on our part, a wager that renders us vulnerable to their special kind of presence. The other person’s love, moreover, captures us in such a way that we cannot connect with it at all if we try to control it intellectually.

(p45)

Trusting that the natural world is intelligible and that truth is worth seeking is essential to getting science off the ground in the first place. We spontaneously trust that our journeys of exploration will be greeted by an ever-expanding field of intelligibility and an inexhaustible depth of truth. …..

(p47)

Theology, unlike scientism, wagers that we can contact the deepest truths only by relaxing the will to control and allowing ourselves to be grasped by a deeper dimension of reality than ordinary experience or science can access by itself. The state of allowing ourselves to be grasped and carried away by this dimension of depth is at least part of what theology means by ‘faith’.”

(p60)

clay

This is from 'The Orthodox Way' by Bishop Kallistos Ware (Eastern Orthodox; Revised Edition, St Vladimir's Seminary press):

In the Creed we do not say, "I believe that there is a God"; we say, "I believe in one God". Between belief that and belief in, there is a crucial distinction...I say to a much-loved friend, "I believe in you", I am doing far more than expressing a belief that this person exists....Faith in God, then, is not at all the same as the kind of logical certainty that we attain in Euclidean geometry. god is not the conclusion to a process of reasoning, the solution to a mathematical problem. To believe in God is not to accept the possibility of His existence because it has been "proved" to us by some theoretical argument, but it is to put our trust in One whom we know and love. Faith is not the supposition that something might be true, but the assurance that someone is there...Here an Orthodox Christian may readily make his own the words of Bishop J.A.T. Robinson: "The act of faith is a constant dialogue with doubt". As Thomas Merton rightly says, "Faith is a principle of questioning and struggle before it becomes a principle of certitude and peace."...Faith...Is to know God not as a theory or an abstract principle, but as a person....

(p 16)

Then he says about Scientific evidence,

"Yet, while there can be no logical demonstrations of the divine reality, there are certain "pointers". In the world within ourselves, there are facts which cry out for an explanation but which remain inexplicable unless we commit ourselves to belief in a personal God....It reason itself which impels me to search for an explanation whenever I discern order and meaning."

(p 19)

The pointers he mention were "order of the Universe", "meaning of conscience" (which is extensively talked baout in the beginning chapters of C.S. Lewis "Mere Christianity" and the odd one, "relationships with other persons". (p 20-1)

"These three "pointers"- in the world around us, in the world within us, and in our inter-personal relationships- can serve together as a way of approach, bringing us to the threshold of faith. None of these "pointers" constitutes a logical proof."

(p21)

Christ4Life

One of the titles of God is that He is the "Incomprehensible". Thus, if we could "prove" the existence of God, He would not be the "Incomprehensible". Furthermore, God created all the natural laws, therefore He is above them. He cannot be controlled or be subject to them, just like a potter can never be subject to the clay he potters. It is like the example of time. God lives in the past, present, and future. Why? Because He created time, so there is no way where He can be subject to its limits. My thinking might be too simple, but you have to admit, I do make a point. ;) :P

clay

I disagree. If I proved you existed, it does not mean that I know comprehend you. My ability to comprehend you will depend more on my relationship and our similarities. I cannot understand the mind of a snake just by seeing it. If I can observe it for awhile, I might be able to start making hypothesis, but with God, proving He exists does not mean we can observe Him.

To me, proving God in the cold, sterile, laboratory setting would probably find Marxist's god.

[Deleted User]

Clay,

I found your references quite helpful, particularly The Orthodox Way. However, I'm a bit confused as to your notion of a Marxian God. It seems to me that Marxism, as a decidedly and applicably secular philosophy, does not fit in at all with any form of deism, especially Judeo-Christian theology. Could you elaborate on the connection between the two?

Thanks,
Taio

clay

This is difficult for me to comment. Marx seems to believe that if there is a god, it is an impersonal one; that god or the first cause is unknowable, and all religion is an externalization of man; and that reality here can only be understood by distancing us from this "Cause", since the "Cause" is distant from us (this is probably not accurate at all, but when I do say Marx's god, I am talking about an impersonal, no need to know, merely the unknowable "Cause" of existence). He was heavily influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach, that contended that God's entire purpose was "the moral and eternal salvation of man: thus man has in fact no other aim than himself" and thus, "Therefore if God is good so then should be man because God is merely an externalization of man because God is an object."

So, I was probably wrong. I had in my mind that treating "God" as a scientific hypothesis would find an impersonal 'Cause', rather than a personal Creator.

I am not a philosopher or a theologian, so I really apologize for this rough synopsis. Would anyone like to take the torch on this one?

godislove260

I'm aware of the philosophy of Feuerbach in which he stated that human beings unable to realize their own strength create an object outside of themselves in which they put the things they think they lack. So if human being for example has limited knowledge then he created a god who is omniscient and so forth. But although I'm familiar with Marx's philosophy I never heard Him being linked to Feuerbach but it's possible. Marx was mainly inspired by Hegel who said everything is Spirit (Geist). I know that Marx said (Religion ist opium des volkes) meaning the people created a God to ease their suffering, since it was Marx's view that religion is what caused people to just endure without rebelling against the capitalism of their time.

God Bless

[Deleted User]

Clay,

Well, although I do not know the specifics of the idea you're attributing to Marx and cannot validate it, the notion seems plausible enough. I think I understand the idea you're trying to convey now. Are you saying that through naturalistic proofs we can only arrive at a secular, impersonal god, who some undefined first cause? If this is your idea, I think I agree mostly. I do have a question though, do you think these two notions of God, as personal creator on one side and impersonal cause on the other, are opposing or in any way mutually exclusive? That is, can they possibly coexist as definitions? Can God be both, but simply only provable one the smaller level of being a first cause?

thanks,
Taio

godislove260

I have a book on orthodoxy in which several proofs are given to the existence of God and one of them is basically the argument of the unmoved mover or the uncaused cause. So apparently this way of thought does not exclude or oppose the judeo christian God as a personal creator.

God Bless

[Deleted User]

godislove260,

That's a great point, and it is what I was hinting at. However, while it may be unproblematic to prove an uncaused first cause, it is a different exercise altogether to prove that this specific uncaused first cause is the Judeo-Christian God. To do this, you would need to state that this uncaused first cause, or this necessary existence is a specific thing. Further, you also need to show that this same specific thing must exist in all possible worlds. That is, it would exist no matter what the different possibilities are. Then, as if all this isn't hard enough, you need to prove that this specific necessary being is not only god but the Judeo-Christian God. As you can see, this task is so difficult, even impossible, that I doubt the argument you mention in fact proves that the uncaused first cause is God. It simply shows, I assume, that there is an uncaused first cause and calls on you as the reader to see that this cause must be God. This is what I think clay mentioned when he said we can hint at the existence of God but perhaps not prove it. That said, I'm sorry I had to subject you to that long-winded, probably convoluted spiel. haha, I hope it helped somewhat.

best,
Taio

godislove260

Hehe, I was just stating that this method was being used by the CoC. I also think the uncaused cause is a reason for deism and not theism, definitly not judeo-christian theism. However, as I said before, I think there's no greater proof of the existence of the judeo-christian God we worship than the miracles. Because through the miracles God REVEALS Himself, through a saint for example, so His name is glorified and so the weak in faith would be strengthened. And when such a miracle happens, it leaves no place for another interpretation other than the existence of the judeo-christian God...

God Bless
Please pray for me

Christ4Life

See Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Although its not directly relevant to this, he does talk of how natural laws point to the existence of an uncaused first cause, although he doesn't refer to it as that. Because these laws are by no way random or arbitrary, but on the contrary, they are intricately involved, somebody incomprehensibly intelligent must have devised this system. He goes on to explain how this eventually points to the Holy Trinity. I don't think he actually tries to prove the existence of God, but he tries to explain how God must exist.