Five Proofs of the Existence of God https://www.amazon.com/dp/1621641333/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_b4ccDbJ7WQBM8
>show me the evidence
My thought is that it's late where I'm at, and your effort to think this through is helpful to someone having trouble properly thinking. Thank you.
This appears to be an argument from one of Edward Feser's books (I don't know if it's his argument). Richard Carrier goes through this argument, as well as the other four.
EDIT: A second response by Carrier to Feser.
EDIT 2: A third response.
5 proofs of the existence of God by Edward Feser is what is recommended. I will read it
> I'm happy to discuss, but's it's not a part of OP's topic or debate.
I knew, but since you appeared friendly and I can't comprehend how an atheist can convert to any religion, I thought to take the chance and ask.
> It was the combination of everything (science, logic, experience), which is what Bayesian logic requires.
Funny how science and logic (not experience, of course) brought me on the opposite side. What's up with Bayesian logic? I've never heard that argument.
> If you really want to know, watch the following testimony. His experience was a lot like mine, except his was much longer : https://youtu.be/FEZJ6zaa_iY
Not gonna lie, I watched only a half. It was interesting, but nothing suggested that he wasn't dreaming and fitting his dream into a specific narrative, helped by his upbringing. Afterall he was raised Catholic, then rejected religion (but still believed new age religions, astrology and other quackery) and then had a Christian experience? How odd...
I'm still hoping to hear an experience that can be replicated by a second, third, fourth, tenth person and can be consistent in its description. The idea of a loving god sounds awesome, but I still haven't find a good reason to believe it's true. Yet I always hope to find an experience (what better proof than evidence, no?) which can convince a skeptic.
I don't know if you've read my other comment under yours, but I'm quite accustomed to people experiencing divinities in their lives, and they all happen to experience the most relevant "person" of their religion. I've never commented them but one, and the girl was firm that her calculations (cherry picked and wrongly summed) made sense. They were calculations. It was practically a math problem to be solved. And yet she rounded these calculations to make God happen. Oh well.
> I recommend starting with this book if you are serious : https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333
Judging by the comments, they appear the usual rational explanation given by western philosophy, such as the cosmological argument and so on. If that's so, have you read the counter arguments about them? What do you think about them?
I'm happy to discuss, but's it's not a part of OP's topic or debate.
> What convinced you? And why Christianity (by the way, which branch)?
It wasn't any one thing. It was the combination of everything (science, logic, experience), which is what Bayesian logic requires. Long story short, I was an atheist for over 30 years, and slowly I started seeing some truth in JudeoChristianity . It kept adding up until I had a profound conversion experience.
> Let me guess, heartwarming feelings during prayer and planned "coincidences" in your life?
Nope. I'm happy to discuss, but cynicism is not very inviting. If you really want to know, watch the following testimony. His experience was a lot like mine, except his was much longer : https://youtu.be/FEZJ6zaa_iY
> discerned His existence through Reason. How?
Via the study of philosophy, and applied logic. It took me years. I recommend starting with this book if you are serious :
>Their conversion just proves that despite the gift of intelligence, one is nevertheless susceptible to irrational beliefs.
How is it irrational when these people gave rational reasons for their belief in the truth of the Christian religion? Check out any of their books/writings. Are Edward Feser's The Last Supersition and 5 Proofs irrational? What about Chesterton's The Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy? What about Alaisdair Macintyre's After Virtue?
>You said he wasn't a Christian yet. Did he accept Jesus as his savior? That is the requirement for salvation from what I know.
Looks like your only idea of Christianity is Protestant Christianity (in fairness to Protestant denominations though, many of them are nuanced in their views on this issue and would disagree with the assertion that only Christians are saved). The Catholic Church which was founded by Christ himself disagrees, and so do the other apostolic orthodox churches (Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox).
>What other ways would this be?
I quoted official teaching, didn't you read it?
>You know this how?
Because they themselves shared their reasons for converting/believing in the truth of Christianity (for non-converts) in their talks, books and writings? How else dude?
>What's this evidence that others converted over?
A lot -- philosophical, scientific and historical evidence.
Philosophical: The traditional cosmological arguments (given by the great thinkers of the Western philosophical tradition -- Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, Aquinas, Leibiniz, etc) for the God of classical theism, the argument from consciousness, the moral argument and others.
Science: The Kalam Cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the argument from biological teleology, and the argument from the laws of nature.
History: the argument from Jesus' miracles, the historical case for the Resurrection, Catholic miracles, and the religious experiences and mystical gifts of countless Christian saints. I lay this out these arguments briefly in this post.
>Because of this outright lie and string of labels thrown at me:
Nah, my assessment is self evident from what you wrote. A silly absolute statement like "no Christian ever believed in his faith on the basis of reason and evidence" is extremely telling...especially given that you doubled down on your erroneous views after being given abundantly clear evidence.
Ok we probably have reached the limits here. My only thought to leave you is that you are wrong here.
"I just don’t know. You don’t know. The top minds of our species DO NOT KNOW! And that is my point."
I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I assure you that you are wrong. You will have to convince yourself. If you are really interested maybe pick this book up.
Most people would agree that these are some of the top minds of our species.
You are being presumptuous that you can do whatever you want and then go to heaven. That is not how it works, if you don't have the humility now to accept the abundant evidence God has given us which reveal Him then you are basically turning your back on Him. That is what it means to go to hell, choosing your own wisdom over God's. Maybe something to think about. God bless you.
> Anything that "can be proven philosophically" is something that can't be proven
Again showing your ignorance. 1+1 = 2. That is not empirical, it's a logical proof. Math is logic. So is the proof of God. Don't like the word philosophical? You can use proved with logic. You seem totally unaware of this, there is more proof that God exists (by pure reason/logic) than the sun will come out tomorrow. But you are woefully ignorant of even these basic things.
> There is no reason to determine there is a God because in order to have reason you have to have evidence and there is absolutely no evidence of a God.
Completely wrong, and you are extremely ignorant of this. Like I said God can be logically proved, and has since the time of Aristotle.
>No one in the world can prove where morals come from
Wrong again, you seem to not know much about ethics at all.
> I already stated I don't wish to diminish what Christianity is in any way, you are literally part of the reason why people don't want to be Christian.
Well I'm not trying to diminish your illogical point of view either. Just like you said people find their morals in "weird places" like a book, I'm stating that people like you find their morals in "weird places" by finding it in absolutely no logic and ignorance. Trying to find morals through ignorance and foolishness is weird, I have to admit.
>Morals can be wrong and if you think that is a false statement try to explain to me how Hitler's morals were right, it's not a very difficult concept.
Again, you really have no idea about ethics, you should educate yourself more. Is it moral to eat an animal? Yes or no? What is there to prove that it's right or wrong? These are very elementary questions when learning about ethics and you haven't even scratched the surface of it, it seems.
>As a former Christian you can tell me all you want about how they don't only worship a Bible and how I don't know anything, but you'd be lying if you said you didn't read out of a Bible at church every Sunday.
As a black man, as a former. You were clearly a part of a sola scriptura Protestant sect. You realize the vast majority of Christians do not believe in the Bible alone. In fact majority of Christians throughout history didn't even read the Bible. Just because of your experience with whatever sect of Christianity (if it was even Christianity, you could have been a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, or a Protestant who thinks Catholics and Orthodox are not Christians) doesn't have much bearing on the majority of Christians. In fact the majority of Christians are Catholic, which are around 53% of all Christians.
>It sounds like you are projecting an idea that you believe atheists are ignorant
They are ignorant, and you've illustrated it many times in this convo. You don't have the even most basic understanding or experience of ethics. So yes, they are. There is plenty of clear logical proof of God but they haven't even heard of it, neither can they refute it. Read Edward Feser's 5 proofs of God which elaborates on the 5 proofs put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas, which are a development of Aristotle. It deals with all the hilariously bad "New Atheist" objections to them, which shows they clearly do not understand it at all. (Highly unlikely you'll ever put any effort to actually learn and understand these, even to refute them). Or if you want a video. The fact that you are ignorant of even these arguments and can't even put forward a way to refute them shows you haven't even explored this.
>This conversation and the way it went was because you assume the worst of atheists
Atheists being ignorant is a fact, it's not an assumption. You thinking that Christianity is "getting morals from a book, and that's weird but oh well" is also hilariously stupid. That's just a fact.
>I know I converted because people like you think they know everything about things they know nothing about.
Looks like an assumption to me! You are assuming I know nothing about...what exactly? Haha. Also an absolutely idiotic reason to do anything really. Hey I met some weirdos, they were awful people. They also said the sky was blue. I guess I don't believe the sky is blue anymore! It must be read, cause of those awful people who thought the sky was blue. Yeah, this is using your reason and FACTS and LOGIC as Ben Shapiro would say haha.
> So, again stop making Christianity look bad
Oh no, somebody said something I don't like! You better act and respond the way I like! Give me a break. You're making yourself look bad, and ignorant, because well you are sadly. Do some research.
Those are a few ways, there are others. They are philosophical proofs. Would those sorts of things persuade you? There is also an abundance of evidence from the natural and scientific world as well, although of course nothing can be "proven" from science
Five Proofs for the Existence of God is really good for the philosophical arguments in favor of God.
The Case for Jesus does an excellent job of proving the historical accuracy of the attributions of the Gospels and what they claim about Jesus Christ
Feser's Greatest Hits:
Why Is There Anything At All? It's Simple
So You Think You Understand the Cosmological Argument?
Cosmological Argument Roundup
The New Atheists and the Cosmological Argument
The Road from Atheism
Adventures in the Old Atheism, Part I: Nietzsche
Adventures in the Old Atheism, Part II: Sartre
Classical Theism Roundup
Five Proofs of the Existence of God
Incoming: Aristotle's Revenge!
Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism by Galen Strawson
Have you read his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God? There's a whole section on this as well as four more proofs.
I'm very slowly working my way through it. It's very dense. I'm reading a little here and there and giving myself lots of time to process.
His point (a good one) is that the natural sciences are by their nature limited to the physical world. It's the nature of science that limits its ability to detect God, not God. It's like using a metal detector to find plastic. If you want proofs for God's existence, check out something like this.
I'm not sure why to be honest, perhaps the option of a choice to be in communion with God is greater than not having free will to choose whether one wants to be in communion with God. The existence of that Tree provides an option for Adam to freely choose and trust his Creator's commands and God's plans for him. It can also serve as a reminder to keep him humble among other things, which for Christians are virtues revealed by God to be very desirable to have in any possible world (Eden, Post Eden/Today, New Heaven/Earth).
But you still have to believe in a monotheistic God before we get into the Adam and Eve story. Have you read Edward Feser's book Five Proofs of the Existence of God. It's a revisit of the arguments for the existence of God. They were previously presented by well known Philosophers and Theologians, but have been clarified to respond to Dawkins' arguments.
Here's a talk about it from Edward Feser. Curious to know if you have any responses to their arguments for the existence of God!
Catholics as a group don't "ignore all the counterarguments". So for example, Ed Feser recently published a book presenting five arguments for the existence of God (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/...). The book responds to the various counterarguments that atheists and agnostics usually make to these arguments. You might not be convinced by the responses, but the counterarguments are not ignored.
Again, I am not trying to argue here that Catholicism can ultimately be rationally justified. I'm not a Catholic, and it's not particularly important to me whether it can or can't be. But it's unfair to caricature Catholics as a group as irrational faith heads (though no doubt some individuals may meet this description).
There are an abundance of philosophical arguments. In our day, we often use the term science to refer only to the natural and social sciences, ignoring the formal ones, e.g. pure math, logic, and philosophy. The natural sciences can lead us to questions that it cannot answer satisfactorily, e.g. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" These questions are more abstract and rely on logic and well thought out arguments more than the sheer weight of physical evidence.
There are lots of philosophical arguments for God's existence. I've seen as many as 20 distinct arguments thrown about. Edward Feser recently published a book in which he writes about 5 of his favorites. However, arguments for God are manifold and go back to ancient Greece. Aristotle argued that there must be what he called an unmoved mover, a point at which causality has its source, otherwise there would be no source of anything, no reason why anything existed. Without reason undergirding the world's existence, how can we believe that anything has a rational explanation? Thomas Aquinas saw in Aristotle's unmoved mover a closeness with the theology of the Christian God as Creator of the world, and presented Aristotle's arguments, among others, as a proof for the existence of God. He listed in his great work, the Summa Theologiae, five so-called proofs of the existence of God. These are not proofs in the way in which we usually use the term in the physical sciences, but more similar to the way it is used in pure math: arguments that demonstrate that it conceptually must be so. As such, most modern scientists refuse these proofs as merely hypotheses, submitting them to an entirely different method of inquiry, one which is woefully incapable of properly addressing the question at hand.
When it comes to the basis for belief, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all hold the history of their faiths, contained primarily in their Scriptures, as further proof of God's existence, as the physical evidence that modern critics demand. With records of how God has made his presence known among his people, and even made himself physically manifest (this is particularly Christian), faith is not blind, but informed by a recognition that history and philosophical inquiry both lead to the conclusion that there is a God.
Tl;dr: Philosophy and history.