-2

Is it possible for an ordinary individual possessing sound cognitive faculties and access to publicly available evidence to establish the existence of a God? Is there a prevailing consensus in philosophy regarding this question?

Two disciplines that suggest that God's existence can be established through reason, arguments, and evidence that anyone should be able to inspect and study by themselves are natural theology and apologetics, but my impression is that not everyone would agree with this suggestion.

Note: When I mention publicly accessible evidence, I am referring to evidence that is in principle available to anyone. Additionally, a proper examination of this evidence, with sound cognitive faculties, should ideally lead to substantial degrees of intersubjective agreement.

Related questions

Are most philosophers atheists, monotheists, polytheists or what?

Is the teleological argument for God completely refuted?

Can God make the belief in His own existence justified (if He exists)?

Definitions

In the comments section definitions of evidence and God have been requested. I will provide quotes from a few sources as working definitions of these concepts.

Evidence

The concept of evidence is crucial to epistemology and the philosophy of science. In epistemology, evidence is often taken to be relevant to justified belief, where the latter, in turn, is typically thought to be necessary for knowledge. Arguably, then, an understanding of evidence is vital for appreciating the two dominant objects of epistemological concern, namely, knowledge and justified belief. In the philosophy of science, evidence is taken to be what confirms or refutes scientific theories, and thereby constitutes our grounds for rationally deciding between competing pictures of the world. In view of this, an understanding of evidence would be indispensable for comprehending the proper functioning of the scientific enterprise.

For these reasons and others, a philosophical appreciation of evidence becomes pressing. Section 1 examines what might be called the nature of evidence. It considers the theoretical roles that evidence plays, with a view towards determining what sort of entity evidence can be—an experience, a proposition, an object, and so on. In doing so, it also considers the extent to which evidence is implicated in justified belief (and by extension, knowledge, if knowledge requires justified belief). Then, section 2 considers the evidential relationship, or the relation between two things by virtue of which one counts as evidence for the other; and it explores the nature of their relationship, that is, whether the relationship is deductive, explanatory, or probabilistic. Finally, equipped with this theoretical background, section 3 looks at some of the important problems and paradoxes that have occupied those working in the theory of evidence.

(source: https://iep.utm.edu/evidence/)

God

God and Other Ultimates

What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be. Historically, philosophy of religion in the West has taken God to be ultimate. Over the past century, the field has become increasingly aware that ultimacy is grasped under different concepts in the world’s religions, philosophies and quasi-religious philosophies—so not only as “God” but also as, e.g., “Brahman”, “the Dao”, and more. Moreover, people have thought to conceptualize each of these ultimates in numerous ways across cultures and times, so there are many models of Brahman, many models of God, many models of the Dao, and more; perhaps there is even a model of what is ultimate for each person who has thought hard about it. This entry presents a framework for understanding this vast landscape of models of God and other ultimates and then surveys some of its major sights. Familiarity with this landscape can clarify the long journey to deciding whether there is anything ultimate, among other benefits.

Section 1 defines “ultimate” and “models” of ultimates, discusses reasons to be interested in the project of modeling what is ultimate or alternatively to think it futile, and explains major categories that help organize the field of models. Section 2 uses these categories to relay over twenty models of Brahman, God and the Dao, both for their own sakes and as entrées into the landscape (the models are numbered as they surface to help the reader spot them and to show by example what a model is). Section 3 discusses the significance of the plurality of models once they are juxtaposed.

[...]

The most venerable model of God that is often read dualistically is known as “perfect being theology”, which bears traces of its origin in its name (this is model 8—a general model, species coming). The idea fully grown, as we have it today, defines God as that which is perfect (whether personal or not), where perfection is typically taken to entail being unsurpassable in power, knowledge, and goodness, and several models add being immutable, impassible, a se, eternal, simple and necessary in some sense. Most perfect being theologians take God to have created the universe out of nothing (ex nihilo), and that view can be taken to entail dualism for a variety of reasons. To offer one, as Brian Davies says, “God makes things to be, but not out of anything” (italics his), including not out of Godself, so the cosmos is entirely fresh stuff—a second kind of stuff, distinct from and radically dependent on God (2004: 3).

(source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ultimates/)

Mark
  • 4,725
  • 1
  • 18
  • 50
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Philip Klöcking Jan 22 '24 at 22:58
  • @Mark Would you say a published experimental protocol that produces individual results qualifies as publicly accessible evidence, even when action is required on the part of the individual to conduct the experiment rigorously? – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 23:25
  • @pygosceles Certainly, although it would depend on how detailed and non-ambiguous the protocol is. For example, if the instructions are very vague and unclear, there may be room for interpretation and potential errors in execution. If you have a protocol that can be broken down into a very detailed sequence of steps, where each step is defined in very precise terms, leaving a very narrow margin for erroneous interpretations (like following a cooking recipe), that would be ideal. – Mark Jan 23 '24 at 23:42
  • @Mark I posit that any reasonable individual, given the sum total of information available just prior to the discovery of quarks would have been able to demonstrate that they exist. I surmise this is possible. Do you set a limit on success rates if such a trial were to be conducted based on actual follow-through? Or what is your threshold for concluding that it is possible vs. impossible? – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 00:03
  • @pygosceles Setting precise limits and thresholds is always complicated. What is the threshold between 'short' hair and 'long' hair? The best I can say is that, the more clear and less ambiguous the protocol is, the better. – Mark Jan 24 '24 at 00:17
  • 1
    @Mark You ask about possibility -- this could confuse a tad when combined with additional limits since in general the only threshold for possibility is that it is within one's capacity to achieve or attain. It seems that it would be very difficult in general to falsify that something is possible. I might ask the individual conducting the experiment, what price of effort are you willing to pay to know? How patient are you willing to be? These are not strictly cognitive faculties and yet they have significant bearing even on discoveries that are deemed primarily cognitive in nature. – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 00:24
  • @pygosceles All those conditions should be laid out very clearly and precisely in the protocol. Everything that is required for a successful execution of the experiment should be stated explicitly, ideally in non-ambiguous terms. – Mark Jan 24 '24 at 00:29
  • @Mark Doesn't that more or less reduce the experiment to a nearly effortless plug-and-chug algorithm? For example, of what avail are rational faculties (beyond mere programming) if no serious thought is required? If the protocol were spelled out exhaustively, shouldn't an 8-bit computer be able to perform the proof in a handful of microseconds? Would that not equate to essentially a look-up table? – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 00:54
  • 1
    This is probably becoming yet another endless thread of comments (I'm seeing a trend). But in short, I don't see how what you are implying in each of your many questions necessarily follows. This is how I see things: if there is a procedure for getting you from A to B, I don't see the problem in being as clear, straightforward, precise, detailed and exhaustive as necessary in order to make it as easy as possible for people to follow the procedure to get them from A to B successfully. Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Why the aversion to being straightforward? – Mark Jan 24 '24 at 01:18
  • Yes, from my point of view, ancient people saw something evident and very impressive that they named God. What that could be? They saw Stars in the night, but what impressed them were not Stars, but The Interstellar Space, that keeps those infinitely many Stars. And that The Interstellar Space they named Nothing, Zero and that is the meaning of God, that is the foundation of The Universe and keeps all The Celestial Bodies. –  Jan 24 '24 at 08:01
  • 1
    -2 on a quetsion with 13 answers, by someone with 2,000+ rep: whoever is voting it down needs to stop – user66697 Feb 04 '24 at 12:16
  • 1
    @user66697 -3 now ... – Mark Feb 04 '24 at 16:16
  • @Mark just got 4 minus votes on completely cogent questions. clearly a personality thing! – user66697 Feb 04 '24 at 16:18

12 Answers12

19

My knowledge of the subject is insufficiently compendious to allow me to give an authoritative answer to your question, but I assume the answer is no, since were it possible to prove the existence of God beyond any doubt, I am sure we would all know the proof by now.

Marco Ocram
  • 20,914
  • 1
  • 12
  • 64
  • 2
    Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Geoffrey Thomas Jan 22 '24 at 09:45
  • 1
    Marco, could you please clarify how this answer differs from "If it were possible to prove the existence of X beyond any doubt, I am sure we would all know the proof by now (for any and all X)"? I ask because we know many things to exist today that we did not know five years ago, and discovery continues. Is this true for all X, or do you believe the existence of God to be a special case? If so, what are the conditions that make this particular subject a special case, so that if such a proof were possible, we would all know and recognize it by now? – pygosceles Jan 22 '24 at 18:11
  • 3
    @pygosceles I would say that a cast-iron proof of the existence of God would be in the same category as a cast iron proof of ESP, of Elvis being alive, of intelligent life on Mars, of Donald Trump being a Russian robot, and any other phenomenon capable of generating world-wide interest and astonishment. – Marco Ocram Jan 22 '24 at 21:37
  • @MarcoOcram Why is that? I am not seeing a robust connection here. For the sake of argument, if someone could prove that Elvis is alive, to me it does not follow that we would therefore all know the proof for it. First, is there really that much positive interest in the subject? Even if there were, knowing does not seem to follow from the interest or astonishment a subject may generate. Do you think the existence of a widely known proof is dependent upon the potential of a subject for sensationalism? Is that the criterion you are advancing in this answer? If so perhaps you could clarify it. – pygosceles Jan 22 '24 at 22:00
  • 2
    @pygosceles do I think sensationalism is a prerequisite for knowledge of a fact to be widespread? Only an idiot would think so. Sensationalism can be a trigger for publicity, but there are other reasons for facts being common knowledge, even the least sensational. My point is that certain types of events inevitably attract world-wide attention, and the discovery of cast-iron evidence for the existence of God would surely fall into that category. – Marco Ocram Jan 22 '24 at 22:39
  • @MarcoOcram I am still not seeing the connection, since it does not seem to follow that publicity or interest relating to a subject entails knowledge of proof, or acceptance of it. It does not follow that attention implies awareness of proof. Many things are right under our noses, undiscovered, despite the purported zeal and interest in them. There are many exceedingly interesting things that very few have knowledge of, and their promulgation is curiously stunted. There are also both positive and negative kinds of interest. If you would like to modify the answer to clarify this, please do. – pygosceles Jan 22 '24 at 23:03
  • @pygosceles you are arguing with me at cross purposes again. I am happy to go along with your interesting change of subject, however: please tell me how you know there are exceedingly many things right under our noses if they are undiscovered? My upper lip I have been familier with since a very early age. Admittedly I once gave an after dinner speech not knowing that a large smear of chocolate mousse lay upon it; but the ignorance was mine only- my smirking audience saw it at once. – Marco Ocram Jan 23 '24 at 07:00
  • @MarcoOcram My comments are not cross purposes unless one of the present purposes is to obfuscate or mislead, then I am contrary to that purpose. Are you claiming to be omniscient? If so then please say so in your answer so that people can evaluate your claims more candidly. Because you have a nose, does it follow that you have full awareness of everything you stand on? – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 15:41
  • @pygosceles are you suggesting that members of this site might be evaluating my answers... uncandidly?!? What a slur. I would not be surprised if some of those you offend take legal action. And to answer the question at the end of your scurrilous comment- yes, I am fully aware of my feet. – Marco Ocram Jan 23 '24 at 16:05
  • @MarcoOcram The fact that someone has not noticed, thought of or processed something that turns out to be rather important is not a slur. It is a truthful observation and you can shoot the messenger if you'd like, but that would only prove that what observers may consider a possible conspiracy is in fact a reality. Please do update your answer with the omniscience claim since that is what you are asserting. – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 16:29
  • @MarcoOcram One more relevant point to raise in disclosing the epistemology being used here. In response to: "do I think sensationalism is a prerequisite for knowledge of a fact to be widespread? Only an idiot would think so. Sensationalism can be a trigger for publicity, but there are other reasons for facts being common knowledge, even the least sensational. My point is that certain types of events inevitably attract world-wide attention, and the discovery of cast-iron evidence for the existence of God would surely fall into that category." Has "common knowledge" ever been wrong before? – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 16:33
  • 1
    @pygosceles the existence of a deity who oversees and intervenes in the whole of our existence would be the most important fact we could possibly know. If it were sufficiently demonstrated to be true (or if, say, the god showed up in some undeniable way), it would be global news, immediately. It'd be the most remarkable verified event in human history. That's not sensationalism. – microondas Jan 23 '24 at 17:25
  • @microondas "would be the most important fact we could possibly know" It would and it is. " it would be global news, immediately" - non sequitur. "If God is real, then maybe the devil is real too": Do you believe this proposition to be correct or at least plausible? – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 17:31
  • @pygosceles "If God is real, then maybe the devil is real too": do I believe that to be correct or plausible? I don't know. It doesn't seem like the latter necessarily follows from the former. – microondas Jan 23 '24 at 17:36
  • @pygosceles you raise so many points that are purely tangential that I am reminded of a Catherine wheel- much energy expended with the result of going round in circles. I would be very grateful if you could let me know how your latest question about 'common knowledge' has a bearing on my answer. – Marco Ocram Jan 23 '24 at 18:46
  • @MarcoOcram These are not tangential, they are foundational. If they are not adequately addressed, the whole stack crumbles and there is nothing to say. Addressing the roots of your argument and asking whether it generalizes or can be taken trivially as true is in no way circular. A claim that something must be common knowledge if there is sufficient public interest and a proof exists for it depends in part on the presumption that common knowledge is never wrong. – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 19:47
  • @MarcoOcram If "common knowledge" has ever been proven wrong in any matter of public interest, then public interest coupled with the existence of a proof do not imply common knowledge. – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 19:47
  • @microondas I did not ask only whether it necessarily follows. I also asked whether it is plausible given the precedent. Do you think that it is plausible that if God exists, the devil might also exist? Let's try another one: "If the devil is real, he might cunningly embargo the knowledge of God; he might even disguise such ignorance as enlightenment, common sense and rationality." Do you rate this statement as plausible or not? – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 19:51
  • @pygosceles if I follow you correctly, and you are suggesting that if the sensational news about the discovery of cast-iron evidence for God was plastered all over the media, the public at large could remain ignorant of it, so wrong 'common knowledge' about the God's status would remain uncorrected, then you have definitely found a fatal flaw in my thinking. I will cross my fingers and hope no-one else spots it. – Marco Ocram Jan 23 '24 at 20:33
  • @pygosceles I don't know if it's plausible. I don't know how I'd evaluate the plausibility of a devil existing. Regarding your second statement: based on normative definitions of devils and gods, sure, that's plausible. The villain would attempt to thwart the hero, as it were. But I'm granting an AWFUL lot for the sake of argument, and the "if" there is doing some heavy lifting. – microondas Jan 23 '24 at 20:50
  • 2
    @pygosceles And following the train of your comments to microondas, I have realised there is another massive flaw in my argument. The ceaselessly vigilant Devil might spot that someone has discovered the cast-iron proof and arrange for them to be killed prematurely just as they were about to contact the press. – Marco Ocram Jan 23 '24 at 20:50
  • @MarcoOcram Or just instill widespread dissonance and apathy that tries to pass itself off as sophistication and enlightenment. It would of course be fallacious to assume there is no devil in order to attempt to prove there is no God (or no proof of God, for that matter). – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 21:18
  • This is probably relevant to the discussion (and related to the kind of 'proof' @pygosceles is talking about): link – Mark Jan 23 '24 at 21:35
  • @Mark To some extent yes, although more broadly and without risking denigrating anyone's experience or perception on the basis of categories such as "supernatural", "subjective", or "religious", I recognize that all proof is personal. Whether the argument is personal experience or "data" purportedly gathered and supplied externally, or credentials or consensus, it is ultimately up to the individual to decide what he will accept as truth. That discretion does often complicate communication as not everyone accepts the same currency of thought, even when one knows better. – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 21:58
  • 1
    @pygosceles that clearly shows you have been arguing with me at cross purposes, since your understanding of what constitutes cast iron evidence is entirely different in character to mine. – Marco Ocram Jan 23 '24 at 22:12
  • 2
    @MarcoOcram You want something that can achieve high degrees of intersubjective agreement, right? In a way, that's what I was trying convey with 'publicly accessible evidence' in my question. – Mark Jan 23 '24 at 22:33
  • @MarcoOcram I don't think it necessarily does. I can see that our assessments of the probability of receipt of such evidence differ. – pygosceles Jan 23 '24 at 23:23
  • @pygosceles even if I accept the saying that all proof is personal, what matters is when people get together and see clearly that they have proven the same thing. Most people would probably agree that electricity exists. This is the sort of thing people want when they say something is proven. Further, there are things that if one doesn't accept them, will get you killed, like stepping off of a height, or, electricity. As far as I know, there are no documented cases of God killing anyone. – Scott Rowe Jan 24 '24 at 00:52
  • @ScottRowe There are millions of documented cases of people receiving communication from God, blessings, and encountering fulfillments of His promises. Of course we can turn a blind eye to that when many pretend to be empirical and unbiased, dismissing all of the data points we don't like as "mere anecdotes" or "coincidence". There is of course suspense in the minds of many on the matter. Does the enforcement of a law have to be immediate and apparent to everyone in order for it to be real? – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 00:57
  • @pygosceles then the question is settled. Let's move on. – Scott Rowe Jan 24 '24 at 01:03
  • @MarcoOcram Whether Satan's interference is a valid explanation for the lack of evidence for God's existence depends entirely on how powerful each of God and Satan are. Common Christian views say God is all-powerful, and Satan is not. So if God wants us to know about him, he could then trivially stop whatever Satan tries to do. It seems contradictory to say that God is all-powerful and also wants a relationship with us. Note that the very same user you're responding to is vehemently defending the idea that everyone knows that God exists in chat, which is at odds with lacking of evidence. – NotThatGuy Jan 24 '24 at 19:12
  • @NotThatGuy "he could then trivially stop whatever Satan tries to do" - Have you ever read the Christian Scriptures, for example, so much as to realize that this life is a test, in which God allows Satan to tempt us, to see whether we will love what is right more than our own pleasure? This convoluted argument you resort to ignores these texts and presupposes the non-existence of God and the devil as described in the seminal texts on the subject in an attempt to prove that it is somehow contradictory. A better argument could be made by reading these texts.

    All people have a conscience.

     – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 20:22
  • @pygosceles I was pointing out that the traits that Christians claim God has are contradictory. Just because those traits are also contradicted by the God's "tests" doesn't fix the problem. 2 contradictions don't cancel out to make for a sound argument. – NotThatGuy Jan 24 '24 at 21:10
  • @NotThatGuy "It seems contradictory to say that God is all-powerful and also wants a relationship with us." - Do you know a formal presentation of this logical contradiction, like a paper that formalizes it? Are you referring to the argument from divine hiddenness or is this a different deductive argument against God's existence? – Mark Jan 24 '24 at 21:36
  • @Mark Yes, it's divine hiddenness. – NotThatGuy Jan 24 '24 at 21:40
  • @NotThatGuy Not appreciating claims doesn't make them self-contrary. Life being an intentional test designed by God, and masking our memories as part of that test contradicts the premise that "if God wants us to know about Him, he could [and would] trivially stop whatever Satan tries to do". God wants us to know about Him AND this life is a test in which we can succeed at growing by our effort. You can't assume this not to be the case in order to say it doesn't make sense, because it does make sense once you eliminate confusing premises. Life could not be a test if God removed all difficulty. – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 21:56
  • @NotThatGuy See here for more detail on why the difficulty of life's challenges does not conflict with the power and love of God: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/51eyring?lang=eng – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 21:57
  • @NotThatGuy Cheers! Yes, I had spotted that I was dealing with an enthusiast. TBH the remarks about satan were a bit of fun- I was being shamelessly juvenile. – Marco Ocram Jan 24 '24 at 22:09
  • @pygosceles "God wants us to know about Him AND this life is a test" - if God hides himself from us as a test, then he doesn't care that much about whether we know about him. Your premises are contradictory. But this just seems like another of your diversions. You're conflating something (problem of evil?) with divine hiddenness. Life being a test doesn't solve divine hiddenness, it is instead just the exact problem of divine hiddenness (or one of the problems, at least): we're supposedly being judged or tested by God despite us not knowing that we're being judged or tested, ergo God is unjust – NotThatGuy Jan 24 '24 at 22:11
  • @NotThatGuy No, He cares very much. Have you ever had a mentor or a coach who cared very much for your development and progress? When it came time for a test, what did he do? Did he slip you the answer key, fix your grades for you, or get into the game to play your part, or did he let you struggle and work it out yourself, with his encouragement? The fact that God doesn't cause you to cheat in the test of life is further proof that He loves us, because He wants us to be genuine and grow in real love. If He wanted a robot farm of puppets He would just make that. But He didn't. He empowers us. – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 22:47
  • @NotThatGuy Please be honest. You cannot move forward in this discussion without acknowledging that sincere love requires being genuine, and a rescue package that does not allow us to grow is not love. It's control. You cannot dispense with the reality of God by merely assuming that if He does exist, He must be a control freak. He does exist and He is not a control freak. He actually wants us to be capable and willing--which of course means He won't force us to, which of course means we can choose to fail. – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 22:50
  • @NotThatGuy It's true that under the most rigorous testing circumstances, we won't always know that we are being tested. Someone in your shop can (and should) be doing quality control without your awareness. If you are a good employee, the quality of your work can be trusted even when you don't know that someone is watching. This does not in any way imply that God is unjust. He wants us to be just and is therefore observing even when we think no one is. Otherwise, again, it would not be a test. Truth is obvious but it speaks to us in a still, small voice even so. – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 22:52
  • @pygosceles You've posted a bunch of comments about how not knowing God exists is a test. So do you accept that people get into heaven based purely on whether they're a good person? Because if you don't, and you hold to the near-universal Christian doctrine that you must accept Jesus to get into heaven, that entirely undermines everything you've said. Lack of evidence for God being a test also directly contradicts everyone knowing that God exists, both of which you've said in this very thread. Also, love implies mercy, which is not justice, so all-loving + perfectly just is contradictory. – NotThatGuy Jan 24 '24 at 23:35
  • @pygosceles "Someone in your shop can (and should) be doing quality control without your awareness" - but you would know people perform random quality controls and you know the consequences of failing those, neither of which applies for not knowing that God exists. "If you are a good employee" ... then you fulfil the expectations clearly laid out by your employer, and you know the consequences of failing to meet those expectations, which would not apply for not knowing that God exists. You're conflating knowing when a test happens with knowing that there is even any test or expectation at all. – NotThatGuy Jan 24 '24 at 23:42
  • @NotThatGuy Your employer doesn't owe you an exhaustive disclosure of every quality control or monitoring activity, nor is it feasible for an employer to spell out every possible failure mode and penalties in advance, although there may be a published handbook (and there is!). You have enough information to do your job well, and enough information to know you need to learn more of what matters most. Everyone knows there is a test. – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 23:45
  • @pygosceles How do you get from "exhaustive disclosure of every quality control or monitoring activity" to "no awareness of any expectation or requirement or test or anything else"? Employment is in no way analogous to not knowing that God exists. You're directly contradicting yourself and drawing analogies based on explicit factors that don't apply, which we can just add to your dishonesty and red herrings, as documented in chat, for reasons why a constructive discussion with you is impossible. – NotThatGuy Jan 24 '24 at 23:58
  • @pygosceles ... and if you're going to lean back on "but everyone does know that God exists", then please refer back to my earlier comments and to what myself and everyone else said to you in chat about that. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 00:00
  • @NotThatGuy "Employment is in no way analogous..." - Given that you have struggled to identify concepts of Deity accurately, this is not a plausible or well-informed statement. I haven't contradicted myself, I haven't been dishonest. I've asked you to engage glaring definitional problems that still haven't been addressed by you. You have a conscience. You have already appealed to it. You either commit to strengthen this connection or weaken it by defecting from it. The fact that you have a conscience implies you know there is a test. You get to consult it in every choice you make. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 00:13
  • @pygosceles You're making some massive leaps to say that "you have a conscience" implies "you know there is a test" (as in I know the Christian God exists and will judge me for my actions). This is an especially unreasonable leap given that evolution explains the existence of the conscience far better than asserting that God did it, and that the mere existence of a conscience is the best evidence that God exists. I can't even call that poor reasoning, because that's just so far removed from anything that can be called reasoning. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 00:48
  • @NotThatGuy No, I made no leaps at all. You claimed to have knowledge between good and evil. That is implicit in the judgment of something being ostensibly "just" or "unjust". Since you know differences between good and evil, and you are empowered to choose, it follows that you are aware of the fact that you can choose to do good things or bad things. It also follows from the fact that you judge others, that you can and probably will be judged for the good and bad that you do. Therefore you know that life is a test. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 00:50
  • @NotThatGuy Evolution is not a thing other than the degradation of genetic material. It is wholly idiotic to ascribe life, organization and morals to a notion of order arising spontaneously from disorder, or life from nonlife, intelligence from nonintelligence. Abiogenesis has been thoroughly disproven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 00:52
  • @pygosceles "Evolution is not a thing" - feel free to go and argue that with the over 99% of scientists who accept evolution. I'm sure I'll see your research paper on that in a reputable peer-reviewed journal any day now. Also, if you want to link somewhere, you should probably read at least the very first sentence, which point out that spontaneous generation is a historical theory, and points to the abiogenesis article, which discussed more up-to-date research on the topic. It's not a good look when you blatantly lie about what your links say. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 01:09
  • @NotThatGuy By the definition of speciation: "If the hybrids are infertile, or fertile but less fit than their ancestors, then there will be further reproductive isolation and speciation has essentially occurred". Wow, infertility, loss of fitness, and death equals evolution! Good job, "scientists"! Because we can never have too much infertility and death. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

    What you are calling peer review here is just groupthink. For the non-braindead, abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are the same thing. Actually spontaneous generation is more generous.

     – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 02:48
  • @NotThatGuy Claiming that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation differ is like saying Socialism and Communism aren't the same thing. It's just a lie of labels. Spontaneous generation disproves that flies pop out of rotting meat without adult flies laying eggs in it. Abiogenesis refers to the idea that life could pop out of some alleged primordial soup. Rotting meat is way, way more advanced and is even organic material derived from life whereas the putative soup is just molecules from who knows where. Big, big head start, and even with the head start it fails. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 02:51
  • @pygosceles "Claiming that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation differ is ... just a lie of labels" - YOUR OWN LINK claims that. You're arguing against the thing you provided as a reliable source of information. I didn't even need to make an argument of my own, I just highlighted the very first sentence of own link. You're arguing against your own link. As for "if the hybrids are infertile, or fertile but less fit than their ancestors...", did you miss the "if" at the beginning of that? "If" means it doesn't always happen, and that part only applies when species "come back into contact". – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 04:41
  • @pygosceles I'll just once more highlight your extreme diversion tactics, in that now you're arguing against evolution and abiogenesis (which is overwhelmingly accepted by anyone studying the topic), but this is miles and miles away from your original contradictory claims that everyone knows that God exists and that lacking evidence for God's existence is a test. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 04:44
  • @NotThatGuy I am aware. Don't think that because someone links to something that he therefore necessarily believes everything in it. I already proved that Evolutionary Theory is a fraud on its own terms. That was the purpose of sharing these links. They contradict themselves. Finding a contradiction in them in order to say that I lied is... distorted. It's missing the point. No, I saw the "if" and I can read plainly what it says. This is if the line is not already extinct and hybrids were already conceived and born and able to reach adulthood, which is a pretty precarious stack of conditions. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 04:45
  • @pygosceles "[The links] contradict themselves" - no, you're just misinterpreting and blatantly lying about what the links say, as I've shown. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 04:47
  • @NotThatGuy You are the one who brought up evolution as the sacred cow of your religion, the thing which must not be blasphemed, trying to explain away conscience. In the process you admitted that you have a conscience. Therefore you know there are differences between right and wrong. You can fight this all day but it will still be true. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 04:47
  • @NotThatGuy Nope. The links state that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are magically different because of the addition of billions of years or some other missing cosmic ingredient that no one has ever identified. They also state that the criterion for the success of evolutionary theory is death, mutual infertility, sterility of offspring, and loss of fitness. They use this as proof to say that evolution has occurred. Lo and behold, this is exactly the opposite of what evolutionary journalism and sensationalism taught in public schools claims. We have all been lied to in very big ways. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 04:51
  • @pygosceles "the sacred cow of your religion, the thing which must not be blasphemed", "trying to explain away", "you admitted", "you know", "You can fight this all day but it will still be true" - there's zero argumentative value in what you just said, but I thought I'd just highlight the condescending and performative language you're using. You're attacking what you disagree with by implying that it's a dogmatic religion, along with 4 separate assertions that you're right. Zero facts, just emotive and assertive language, to argue against what's perhaps the best supported scientific theory. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 05:05
  • @NotThatGuy You're not recognizing what you have done. You have used empty rhetoric that you say is substantiated--by what? Not by any actual reason, but by indirection and groupthink. It is a religion of dogmatism. Death and decay equals life and progress, woo! These are facts. So-called scientific theories in this context are anything but scientific. They are the biggest scam of the last 6000 years. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 05:14
  • @pygosceles Am I right in summarising your position as follows? Humans have an innate ability to know God. To humans who do, our existence, consciousness and the miracle of the world around us is proof of God's existence. Is that about right? – Marco Ocram Jan 25 '24 at 08:34
  • @MarcoOcram That is a beginning of it, yes. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 08:54
  • @pygosceles is it possible to summarise the rest in a sentence or two? – Marco Ocram Jan 25 '24 at 11:55
  • @MarcoOcram They've said multiple times that all humans know God, not just that they have the ability to do so. The latter I can argue against, but the former is just so condescending, disrespectful and close-minded, that there probably isn't much worth saying there. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 12:32
  • @NotThatGuy and Marco Ocram, this question will probably be of your interest. – Mark Jan 25 '24 at 13:07
  • @Mark You can't find many things "all" Christians believe. There are certainly other scriptural interpretations, which have their own problems. It's unsurprising that most of the quotes in that question come down to "the Bible says it, therefore it's true". Why should we trust the BIble? Because the Bible says we should! Well, thanks Mr Circular. It's sickening that people actively preach that Christians should blatantly refuse to actually have an open-minded conversation, and should instead just firmly assert that other people don't believe what they say they believe, because Bible. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 13:22
  • @NotThatGuy (*) or firmly assert that they do believe what they say they don't believe. – Mark Jan 25 '24 at 13:24
  • @Mark Way back when, I was taught that while you should accept Jesus to go to heaven, people who never learnt about God wouldn't be punished for that, and could go to heaven by ... being a good person? I can't speak to my former self, but I'd probably have extended that to people who weren't convinced that God exists. There is at least some support for this idea within Catholicism, for example, including from this guy people call "pope". – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 14:09
  • @NotThatGuy Have you published your deconversion story somewhere? I'm curious. – Mark Jan 25 '24 at 14:40
  • @Mark I have not, and I'm happy to just leave it at selective anecdotes scattered about, as I deem the downside of sharing limited personal details publicly to be sufficiently outweighed by the point I'm trying to make. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 14:44
  • @NotThatGuy But was there ever a point before your deconversion at which you would have said that you were 'utterly convinced' of God's existence, that you were 'on fire' for God, that you had a 'personal relationship' with Him, or anything along those lines? – Mark Jan 25 '24 at 14:52
  • @Mark Yes, maybe, and yes, but "relationship" is relative, and about as one-sided as a relationship with a teddy bear, except less tangible (which is not to throw shade on people loving stuffed animals, but there isn't something feeling and doing something back). And it all started to unravel and became a source of significant distress as I couldn't find any good evidence for the criteria for salvation or heaven or hell or anything else related to the vitally-important afterlife. The naturalistic view of non-existence may be less fun than eternal bliss, but it's epistemologically sound. – NotThatGuy Jan 25 '24 at 15:12
  • @MarcoOcram All people know there is a God because we are all children of God. This is true rationally, it is true existentially, and the very fiber of our being tells us so. To ignore this forever is the ultimate disappointment, and to act contrary to this identity is the ultimate contradiction of self, which is misery. There has been a deliberate veil of forgetfulness placed over our minds because this life is a test to see if we will use our conscience, which everyone has, to choose what is right even when we lack intellectual recognition and remembrance of God. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 16:22
  • @MarcoOcram Using conscience well leads back to God, who gave us our conscience. This is why there is final and eternal judgment. We could unpack more ramifications but this is a summary of what I have stated. That's more than two sentences with some restatements because if it seems too unfamiliar or disconnected with our experience it is difficult to find our place in a reality where amnesia prevails. – pygosceles Jan 25 '24 at 16:23
10

You would need observations that can be explained by the existence of god, and that have no reasonable explanation if god does not exist. I don’t know of any such observations.

And then there is the possibility that you find an entity that is very powerful, knows a lot, but isn’t quite what we would call “god”. And that could be very hard to distinguish.

gnasher729
  • 5,515
  • 11
  • 17
  • 3
    There does not seem to be a way to prove the existence of God without the assistance of God. – Idiosyncratic Soul Jan 20 '24 at 20:42
  • 1
    One could argue about when a being could be reasonably be called "god", but I think the important part is which traits the being has, what they did in the past, and what they would do in the future, which roughly translates to which (very specific variant of a) religion they correspond to. As an example, the problem of evil/suffering suggests that an all-loving all-powerful being is inconsistent with reality as we know it. So one may hypothetically accept that a god-like entity exists long before accepting that they're all-loving and all-powerful, even if they claim to be so (lying is a thing) – NotThatGuy Jan 21 '24 at 06:06
  • 1
    David Hume's section on miracles in his Enquiry is the classic demolition of most arguments from physical observation to existence of God: most observations even if inexplicable prove far less than the existence of God as commonly understood. – Stuart F Jan 21 '24 at 12:36
  • @IdiosyncraticSoul Our cognitive faculties, the Earth, the Sun, our lives, all of the life support systems built into our environs, our very being, do those qualify as "assistance" from God? – pygosceles Jan 21 '24 at 23:39
  • This answer seems to have a working definition of God as very powerful (practically omnipotent) and knowing a lot (practically omniscient). It also relates to explaining power as an indicator of godliness, so to speak. This leaves the door open to questions of falsifiability, for example, whether it can be falsified that something that only appears explainable in no other way today may at some point in the future have an explanation that purports to do away with the necessity of God. We are left to wonder whether this criterion can answer the question of establishing the existence of God. – pygosceles Jan 21 '24 at 23:50
3

There are four tactics I have seen applied to this question:

  1. Natural theology in favor of God -- argue from Aquinas-type proofs to a deity of some kind, then argue for a specific religion based on miracles. The best theologian/philosopher I have seen arguing this way is JP Moreland.

  2. God thinking is viable, and a credible alternative to non-God assumptions. This is basically an extension of Lakatos' "Research Programme" approach in philosophy of science, to ontological worldviews. Just as a science field can support multiple viable research programmes, so can philosophic ontology -- and reason and evidences can support a at least plausible God hypothesis. The best theologian/philosopher who I have seen arguing this way is Richard Swinburne.

  3. God thinking is incoherent, and intrinsically nonsense, hence God is not a credible idea. This was the main argument of Anthony Flew. Swinburne's most important pro-theism book "the Coherence of Theism" was admitted by Flew to have refuted this claim. However, despite that admission, most atheists today continue to hold by Flew's conclusion in "the Presumption of Atheism" that atheism is the default view, and should be what one concludes unless theists provide very strong justification for theism.

  4. Natural theology refutes God. Prior to Flew, this was the primary argument used by atheists -- that the contradictions between theology claims and this world are sufficiently extensive, and these falsification tests have been demonstrated in multiple religions, that one can reasonably infer that all religions are false even if not all have yet been explicitly falsified. One work in this line I can recommend is "the Miracle of Theism", by JL Mackie.

I believe that "an ordinary individual possessing sound cognitive faculties and access to publicly available evidence" can review these four sets of arguments and reach a credible conclusion based on them.

That conclusion MAY be that none of these are definitive and convincing arguments, and the question remains open, that one of the four IS convincing, or that several are viable, but not yet slam dunk, etc.

Dcleve
  • 13,610
  • 1
  • 14
  • 54
  • Can different people reach different credible conclusions that are mutually exclusive, after studying the same arguments and having access to the same evidence? – Mark Jan 20 '24 at 20:21
  • 1
    @Mark -- yes, certainly. We are not all identical in our starting presumptions, etc. – Dcleve Jan 20 '24 at 20:23
  • 1
    I think that if different people reach different conclusions using reason, then someone was wrong or something was missing from the inputs. The whole point of reason is to arrive at conclusions reliably. Isn't there a name for doing the same thing and getting different results? "Incompletely Specified" is a term for not doing all that was needed or success. – Scott Rowe Jan 24 '24 at 00:20
  • @ScottRowe -- There are many cases in our world where judgement is called for. Not all of us make the same judgement, when judgment is needed. – Dcleve Jan 24 '24 at 02:44
  • 2
    Right, but it's a question about reason and evidence. The word 'judgment' doesn't appear anywhere else except your comment (and mine of course). It would be great to have a decision procedure that is not affected by individual differences, especially if we are all expected to abide by the results. – Scott Rowe Jan 24 '24 at 02:55
3

Well, I have been finding answer to this specific question since I became an adult. I don't think by applying reason we can find God. The existence of God is beyond time and space. We cannot apply a 3D scientific approach to find it. We can only feel it.

Rabail Anjum
  • 299
  • 1
  • 10
1

If you're a Bayesian, then absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, although unconclusive. Similarly, if you'd expect God to do X and X indeed happens then it is an evidence for God's existence (so, for example, existence of religion is evidence for God's existence, although, again, unconclusive). Therefore: yes.

  • 4
    Given there are many religions, your argument suggests there are therefore many gods. I also expect god made me post this comment, therefore this is proof that god exists. – Bib Jan 21 '24 at 12:02
  • 1
    @Bib Your remark is ridiculous. I explicitly said that the evidence is unconclusive. And, no, the plurality of religions is evidence that there is no God, that there are many Gods, that he (or they), if exists/exist, doesn't/don't intervene. Again, it's unconclusive evidence. Your reasoning here is the philosophical equivalent to "if X takes 2h for one person to do, then X takes 4h for two people to do". –  Jan 21 '24 at 17:55
1

TL;DR: No, because such evidence would limit God‘s omnipotence.

Assuming God exists as described in the Hebrew bible, and is omnipotent, then His omnipotence also includes the ability to reveal or not reveal Himself to mankind. Evidence that could be established by pure reason would take away the possibility to not reveal Himself. The idea that such evidence could exist is therefore at odds with the concept of omnipotence.

UPDATE: @pygosceles rightfully pointed out in a comment that this argument implicitely uses an inconsistent definition of omnipotence and is thus not sound.

Interestingly, this sort of supports the refutation of OP's question on another level. The debate on how to understand omnipotence in a non-contradictional way has been going on for centuries (see for instance the omnipotence paradoxon). The same is true for the concept of God itself, so all attempts at proving God will suffer from the same problem.

wra
  • 171
  • 4
  • 1
    What's established is God's existence, not evidence. What would be used (hypothetically) to establish it is evidence + reasoning based upon that evidence. If God is omnipotent, in particular He should be able to provide that evidence. I see no contradiction. – Mark Jan 24 '24 at 00:11
  • 1
    But if God is omnipotent in this sense, then He can also prove His reality to everyone purely by reason and evidence. This contradiction stems from a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence. – pygosceles Jan 24 '24 at 01:14
0

Is evidence an objective criterion?

  1. There are two rather different interpretations what it means that “a statement is evident”.

    • Objective definition: Evidence is an objective property of a statement. The truth of the statement S is obvious, no further proof is necessary. Every morning the sun rises in the East out of the ocean.
    • Subjective definition: Evidence is a relative property, it is a property of the belief of a given person p about the truth of a statement S. Person p believes S, i.e. that every morning the sun rises in the East out of the ocean.

    In both cases of evidence it is claimed that the truth of the statement does not need further proof, the truth can be recognized by intuition. In the first example above the statement about the sun is false, in the second example the statement about the belief of the person concerning the sun is true, but the belief is false.

    Historical experience with statements like above shows that evidence is not sufficient for truth. Intuition can be a good or a bad guide. Intuition has to be verified.

  2. Concerning the OP’s question my answer is: No one has presented objective evidence for the existence of God. There are several persons who claim subjective evidence. But in neither case evidence replaces further inquiry.

    Also the majority of philosophers does not accept the claimed proofs of the existence of God.

Jo Wehler
  • 30,912
  • 3
  • 29
  • 94
  • "Also the majority of philosophers does not accept the claimed proofs of the existence of God." - Do you know statistics backing this up that you could cite? – Mark Jan 21 '24 at 12:37
  • 2
    @Mark You may have a look at https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4842?target_group= – Jo Wehler Jan 21 '24 at 13:11
  • +1 Evidence use is important as well. Evidence can be used for confirmation ( scientific method) or for justification (epistemology) Confirmation and justification are not equivalent. – Idiosyncratic Soul Jan 21 '24 at 18:11
0

I think the answer is 'no', but it took me a bit of time to appreciate what the question actually was. I can't answer for everyone else, but suppose someone showed me they could work 'miracles'...

These miracles are happening in our universe. They are part of it, even if I do not see how they are done. It could be a trick or it could be advanced technology.

The miracle is not performed by us; it is only done by appealing to some higher power. Fine: there are technically advanced aliens but they are still part of our universe.

The miracles come from outside our universe. Hard to prove conclusively, but maybe there are causes that lie outside our universe. Again, this is possible but it may just stretch our idea of 'universe'. If the miracle generation comes from 'heaven in response to prayer, then we have two-way cause and effect between heaven and earth. Heaven is a part of the universe, even if it is not a place we can physically travel to.

What about these miracle workers themselves. Are they aliens? Where did they come from? Did something else create them and their world? If so, they are faced with the same regression to an origin as we are. We can only get out of this if they somehow are responsible for all worlds and all existence including their own.

At this point the argument has wholly moved from the material realm, and we cannot pursue it any further. You might believe they are gods; I might believe they are actually aliens who say what we want to hear.

Richard Kirk
  • 518
  • 5
  • 1
    All you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating how one can invoke philosophical presuppositions in order to make the evidence say whatever you want it to say. – Matthew Jan 22 '24 at 03:38
0

I would say that some things have to be accepted axiomatically. Axioms don't have proof. Axioms are held to be true without being able to prove them.

As a fundamental rule the the most fundamental rule proves the derived rules. If God by definition is the most Fundamental Thing, there is no way to prove God or God's existence by any derivation.

Since you have mentioned sound cognitive abilities, it is implied that you are expecting the reasonableness of reason or any reasoning provided. The question that now remains is why is reason considered to be of value or meaningful or worth pursuing or even thinking about or why it should be considered sound or unsound. (Note: We are entering recursion. Reason is trying to reason about itself.)

Pure naturalism cannot explain the reasonableness of reason. In pure naturalism there is no reason for reason to exist. Which means reason and reasoning do not exist. Pure naturalism does not have any purpose or meaning or end goal.

Or to take naturalism to an extreme, like some people argue, pure non-rational (non purposeful and non-intentional) causes, suddenly caused reason to come into existence. However anyone with sound cognitive abilities will likely find this kind of argument distasteful and irrational. Its like ex-nihilo non-reason brought forth reason.

And this reason went on to question the source of its existence and found out that the source of its existence was actually non-reason. Funny, isn't it? The same applies to truth and morality and goodness. Out of something that doesn't care about truth or morality or goodness came forth truth and morality and goodness?

Is there a distinct "I", as distinct from the great naturalistic process which can think about the naturalistic process or is the thinking itself still part of the naturalistic process therefore making all contemplation and thinking itself meaningless and hence non-rational?

I hope this answer helped you in some way, pointing to theism as the more reasonable and axiomatic explanation for the existence of reason.

References:

Miracles by C.S. Lewis https://www.fadedpage.com/books/20150616/html.php#c3

The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis : https://www.fadedpage.com/showbook.php?pid=20150135

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/07/argument-from-reason-and-lewiss-post.html

https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/the-argument-from-reason.pdf

Mavin
  • 25
  • 2
  • Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. – Community Jan 23 '24 at 11:47
-1

According to Romans 1:19-20, the answer is "yes":

What can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

Consider a simple child's question, "Daddy, who made the flowers?". We instinctively know that the flowers (and us humans!) have a Designer, just as we instinctively know right from wrong. Life is absolutely abounding in indicators that it was Designed, while attempts to explain life without resort to a Designer run into any number of problems. This answer goes into some additional details. Also see the Discovery Institute for more.

Consider, also, the second point above; that we know right from wrong. Science struggles to explain altruism (as seen not just in humans but in animals as well), yet the scope of human morality extends far beyond that.

All of this points to a Designer, and, while the nature of that designer is more difficult to arrive at, such designer would necessarily be superior to any known existing life. Said designer must either have an origin, which would in turn have to be a higher-order designer and so on ad infinitum, or would have to be uncaused, i.e. would have to be "God". The lack of evidence of any other life in the universe also argues for the latter. (Additional cosmological arguments could be made, but it's arguable whether that's in scope. Moreover, if we invoke Christian Scripture, we could present evidence of the accuracy thereof, which would further support the existence of not just a Designer as a general entity, but the Christian God specifically. However, that is definitely stretching the scope of the question as I understand it.)

(At this point, it may be interesting to consider R. Kirk's answer; in particular, how he uses an a prior philosophical assumption — that nothing immaterial exists — to define "God" as being necessarily material. As noted, this takes us into infinite regress land, which in turn casts doubt on the axiom and therefore serves as positive evidence that "God" does, in fact, exist.)

Now, naysayers will of course deny that God exists, which tells us something else about God; namely, that He has arranged for the evidence of His existence to not be incontrovertible. In fact, He has arranged for humans to have Free Will, which includes the ability to disregard the evidence of His existence. Nevertheless, such a position is full of problems and inconsistencies.

A relevant question is whether those who deny God's existence have an ulterior motive for doing so... and the answer would appear to be 'yes'. Just as most humans acknowledge some form of obedience-debt to their parents, the existence of a Creator would imply some degree of subservience, as well as the existence of standards of right and wrong. One need only look at the rampancy of moral relativism to understand how most humans feel about those ideas!

Matthew
  • 413
  • 7
  • Interesting perspective. What do you think of Christians such as Blaise Pascal who would contend that God's existence cannot be established using reason alone? See this question. – Mark Jan 22 '24 at 04:12
  • @Mark, I think it's directly contrary to Romans 1:20. I think that what Pascal saw, rather, was that humans are entirely able to creatively reinterpret the evidence that exists such that one cannot rely on evidence to "prove" God's existence. Those who don't want to believe are simply not going to believe, period. It is impossible for Free Will to exist and for there to exist some body of evidence which cannot be rejected. The two states are logically incompatible. (I think we've had this conversation before? ) – Matthew Jan 22 '24 at 04:17
  • What are your thoughts on reformed epistemology? – Mark Jan 22 '24 at 04:25
  • By the way, a related question. – Mark Jan 22 '24 at 04:29
  • @Mark, I think the claim that "(any!) belief can be rational without any appeal to evidence or argument" is using a definition of "rational" that is not the definition I use. I also think Scripture encourages reasoned (i.e. rational) belief. (FYI, I actually got here via the related question, but I don't have an answer for that one. "Consensus" is going to be problematical there.) – Matthew Jan 22 '24 at 04:31
  • Flowers and altruism exist because they work better than alternatives. No further explanation is needed, just "world enough, and time." – Scott Rowe Jan 24 '24 at 00:32
  • @ScottRowe, but what caused them to exist in the first place? Time isn't a miracle you can invoke to violate the laws of physics and/or probability. Sorry, but I don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist. – Matthew Jan 24 '24 at 03:30
  • I liked Hebrews 11:1, the old version: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (my emphasis). But it isn't much use for day to day life. Believing without sufficient evidence is a good way to be dangerously wrong, or just dangerous. It all comes down to that little word 'sufficient'. For me, it means that it has a determining effect on the outcome. So then we look at outcomes, and so ad infinitum... – Scott Rowe Jan 24 '24 at 12:01
  • @Matthew I ended up answering my own question here. – Mark Jan 24 '24 at 20:28
-2

Through reason? No, the existence of God cannot be shown through logic alone, for any reasonable choice of axioms. The obstacle is that all-powerful beings are logically impossible; I explain one proof in this answer. Word usage in holy texts would then preclude the existence of several deities as described; see this question and answer for one relevant example.

Through evidence? Well, it's unlikely, because quantum mechanics is indeterminate (see this question and answer) and contextual, and thus forbids classically all-knowing or all-seeing beings. The evidence in favor of quantum mechanics includes Bell tests, GHZ tests, and everyday objects like semiconductors in computers. Additionally, if any creator were to grant any of the typical definitions of free will to us, then by virtue of the Free Will Theorem and the interaction between the cells in our eyes and photons, we would be spreading free will throughout our surroundings, which sometimes is considered a conflict with being all-knowing. (See also "Omniscience and Free Will" on WP as a relevant portal.)

Corbin
  • 803
  • 5
  • 16
  • "Through evidence? Well, it's unlikely, because quantum mechanics is indeterminate (see this question and answer) and contextual, and thus forbids classically all-knowing or all-seeing beings" - Can you please unpack this entailment a bit more? How does one thing follow from the other? – Mark Jan 22 '24 at 00:20
  • @Mark: Sometimes particles are in states where nothing has observed them over a span of spacetime. They are indeterminate; their properties aren't just hidden, but undefinable. This is one of the tough parts of QM, and I can only recommend WP's excellent summaries of the topic. There's also six hours of lectures on the topic from JH Conway. – Corbin Jan 22 '24 at 00:47
  • Do you know any authors who explicitly make this argument against all-knowing or all-seeing beings? Do you know authors who have responded to those authors? – Mark Jan 22 '24 at 00:51
  • I believe this answer to be flawed because it relies on an incorrect assumption, namely, that a self-contradictory definition of a term applied to God therefore makes the idea of God logically incomprehensible. A generalization of the purported omnipotence paradox is "There is a thing Y that can do X that cannot do X. Therefore Y cannot exist." It is absurd on its face. Reasonable definitions of omnipotence exist, such as for example, "The ability to do all sensible and worthwhile things". Steelmanning the nature of God by using a more sensible definition will ameliorate this flaw. – pygosceles Jan 22 '24 at 18:17
  • @pygosceles: Sanity check: I can do all sensible and worthwhile things which are within my ambit, right? You're committing the fallacy of special pleading, where the same logical description applies to both us and also to proposed other beings, but those other beings are given an exemption from the rules of logic and the experience of physics. – Corbin Jan 22 '24 at 22:39
  • @Corbin Why did you add the exclusion of "which are within my ambit"? What you have stated may be indistinguishable from a tautology. I have committed no fallacy at all, as just demonstrated, you modified the conditions. Omnipotence is the ability to do all sensible and worthwhile things, period. If you cannot do them in your present capacity that is not proof that they cannot be done. No exceptions on my part, period. Just asking for a sensible definition, which is well within the reach of all rational beings. – pygosceles Jan 22 '24 at 23:06
  • @pygosceles: Define "sensible" and "worthwhile" in (higher-order) logic and maybe I'll take you seriously. As-is, though, it makes no difference; in the linked answer, I explain clearly how to set up a rock-throwing tournament such that nobody can enter both an undefeatable rock and an undefeatable champion, and you haven't addressed that at all. – Corbin Jan 22 '24 at 23:15
  • @Corbin "You haven't addressed that at all": I have already addressed that exactly. The superlatives are mutually exclusive. By admitting that the advanced definition is self-contradictory, the subject becomes irrelevant and the claim correspondingly has no discerning power. If you don't want to settle on any specific definition, it could be simply enough addressed by stating that a being is "more nearly omnipotent" if he can do things that another being can't. If you wanted to frame it this way you could employ induction.At any rate the gap between your ambit and the general case is nonempty. – pygosceles Jan 22 '24 at 23:32
-4

Is it possible for an ordinary individual possessing sound cognitive faculties and access to publicly available evidence to establish the existence of a God?

Absolutely yes. The first question to answer is whether or not this person knows anything. What does it mean to know something? It is the same meaning as to have a Conscience. All people have a Conscience to begin with. The very word "cognitive" is cognate with conscience. The root of both words is "knowledge", with the prefix con- meaning "together; with". Therefore a person possessing sound cognitive faculties by definition must have a functioning conscience. The Latin verb cogitare is further extended by etymologies showing a connection to words such as consider, examine, and so on. All of these are grounded in Conscience because in order for anything to be known, it must be contained within or distill upon the Conscience (by definition). Taken together, Conscience and observation prove to all people that there is a God. If he knows anything, he knows there is a God, or can know it by connecting to what he knows.

Interestingly the philosopher René Descartes equated this inner knowledge with a proof of being:

Cogito, ergo sum

In other words, in plain Latin, I have a Conscience (implied by the use thereof by perception or consideration in the verb cogito), therefore I am.

We all know this at least to the degree that we personally think, but how does one think or know anything?

Philosophy alone is unqualified to opine on this subject, and this proves the existence of a Power superior to oneself, or even one's faculties for cognition. Therefore the ultimate proof of existence implies a syllogism consequent from something greater than self or even than thought itself.

Revelations from God state:

For in Him (God) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Acts 17:28

Our faculty of cognition is a gift. We did not and could not create it ourselves, therefore Who gave it to us? This is good logic. Nothing short of this admission or question can be good logic, depending on circular or ungrounded presumption instead.

Further revelations from God equate the Conscience with something called "the Light of Christ", or in other words, the ability to perceive things as they really are, through the power of the Son of God to give and to be the Light and Life of the world. This is the Conscience, the basis of cogito in "cogito ergo sum".

Putting two and two together with these revelations, in the Spirit of true science we may proclaim,

I am a child of God, therefore I am.

This is immediately consequent from the observation that we think or know some things, and that God has claimed authorship of this gift, and proves it to our own selves to the very undeniable and personal repository of the Conscience.

All proof is personal. The work of proving is the act of connecting a proposition "under test" to the corpus of what we personally already know, demonstrating it by the same standard of Conscience, or proving its inconsistency with what one already knows. When such knowledge or proof is delivered, it simply becomes a matter of whether one (1) recognizes what he knows (it is possible to know a thing but not presently remember or recall it, as the condition of temporary amnesia proves), and (2) is honest with oneself and others about this proof. This handily explains why, even when something is known to one or to millions, both relative handfuls or billions depending on the ebb and flow of secular thought, there are holdouts who do not acknowledge what is true, whether they be a minority or a majority.

An infinite number of proofs of the reality of God exist, and every one of them is verifiable by the appropriate application of Conscience to the question.

All things denote there is a God. From planets and comets to skin grafts and the chirality of molecules, every alternative argument requires suspending what we know to pursue ungrounded speculation or circular claims. Belief in God, on the other hand, has its roots in what we do know.

Is there a prevailing consensus in philosophy regarding this question?

Consensus is not a very meaningful indicator in the realm of philosophy. "Philosophy" means love of wisdom, not love of popularity or consensus. If there is wisdom in consensus as contrasted with certain other value systems is a question which deserves an answer in its own right, but it cannot otherwise or generally be taken for granted that consensus among philosophers is inherently meaningful. Many such consensuses in the past have proven to be fads. Whether few or many embrace wisdom does not change the nature of it, nor is it any less valuable because fewer appreciate it. All are entitled to seek it.

As the example from Acts 17 illustrates, many respected philosophers and poets may hint at, touch on, or even agree on the reality and nature of God, and yet still fail to clinch a widespread or unwavering consensus from a populace. This is because of the mutability of how people treat Conscience relative to other considerations, for example, the wavering principle of deference to consensus or apparent consensus.

my impression is that not everyone would agree with this suggestion.

And as we have just demonstrated, whether or not everyone agrees is immaterial.

pygosceles
  • 606
  • 3
  • 12
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Geoffrey Thomas Jan 25 '24 at 10:55