What is Reddit's opinion of Five Proofs of the Existence of God?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Well that's a rabbithole we can go down, but the original argument here was and I quote

>Religious people always use religious scripture to prove religion. It is baffling.

I just wanted to pop in and say that that is simply not true. If you are interested in following down the rabbit hole of arguments for the existence of God, I would recommend you start at Ed Feser who is a former atheist professor of philosophy, and whose book addresses your particular concern about the first cause.

Not that I want to take the bait and go too deep into the rabbithole with you, but the "what caused God" question misses the point of the argument. The God of the first cause argument is not one more being in a chain of causality, but rather the condition of being itself. It is not an exercise of looking throughout the observable universe for an old bearded guy who flicked a light switch and started a sequence of events. Of course if we were to look for one such element, the question "but who made that one dude who flicked the switch" would be valid.

Instead what we argue is that being itself stands athwart non-being; and because things are, they are sustained in that being-ness by that to-be itself which we could call "God." This being itself is not a part of the observable universe but rather the condition for its existence.

You would say that those of us who believe in this are superstitious fools who believe in a magical being sustaining the universe, but in reality what we are is contending with the question why is there something rather than nothing which is a question worth contending with. I think it would be far more superstitious or magical-thinking to just say "it just is" or that it comes from nothing.

What did you read by Aquinas? And what did you think the faults were in DBH's book? I don't take The Case for Christ very seriously since the guy is in no way trained in theology or philosophy, nor really puts forward an argument for God's existence. Mere Christianity is likewise not so much an argument for God's existence.

A book I've been recommending to people lately (since it's only just come out) is Ed Feser's <em>Five Proofs of the Existence of God</em>.

>exclude the possibility of salvation outside of it

Not Catholic Christianity. As it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847:

>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

And as stated in the Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:

>Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.

Those who though no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, may be united to Christ and his Church (however imperfectly) by living a good life.

---

>What makes our religion different than the others and how would you go about explaining it to an atheist with a view of religion like my boss's?

Our religion has the most evidence behind it.

Philosophy strongly points towards the God of classical theism (the God of the Western philosophical tradition -- Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Maimonides, Avicenna, Aquinas and Leibniz), which is only compatible with the God of the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

History (miracles) strongly points towards the truth of Christianity. When you look at the world's religions objectively, Christianity has a clear and impressive advantage in the miracles department, and really, it isn't close. Virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was a healer and exorcist, and that his first followers claimed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them (including a former enemy of the early Church, Paul, who converted). Scholars also recognize that Jesus' followers displayed a steadfast faith -- travelling great distances, enduring suffering and even dying for what they believed in.

Even after Christ and his supposed resurrection, miracles have been present throughout Christian history. Historically, in Christianity, there have been many cases of Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions and miraculous healings. Countless Christian saints have also had religious experiences (many of them being explicitly Christian -- seeing and speaking to Jesus, Mary, saints and angels, and seeing and being attacked by demons as well) and were blessed with mystical gifts (e.g. stigmata, healing, visions, ecstasies, locutions, soul reading, bilocation, knowing future events, etc). Examples of these saints include Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Hildegard of Bingen, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Vincent Ferrer, Joan of Arc, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine Emmerich, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi, Genma Galangi and Padre Pio. The above individuals are also men and women of great virtue, and their strong moral character add to their credibility. And yes, we have solid testimony for our saints and their miracles. For St. Francis for example (and his mystical experiences, gifts and miracles), we have a biography written by Thomas of Celano (who met him personally) and by St. Bonaventure (who met him personally and was healed by him during his youth). For St. Catherine of Sienna (and her mystical experiences, gifts and miracles), we have a biography written by her friend, confessor and leader of the Dominican order, Bl. Raymond of Capua. For St. Teresa of Avila (and her mystical experiences and gifts), we have her own autobiography. For John Vianney (and his mystical experiences, gifts and miracles), we have a biography by reputable historian Francis Trochu. For Padre Pio (and his mystical gifts, experiences and miracles), we have 8 biographies written during his lifetime alone. For the recently beatified Solanus Casey (and his mystical gifts and miracles), a simple Amazon search shows a biography written by a Vice Postulator for his cause. I could do this for literally so many of our saints. We also have a pair of impressive relics, the shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Orvieto. There is also the reality of Catholic exorcisms.

And these Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, miraculous healings and religious/mystical experiences continue to happen today. In the end, our religion is seriously littered with the miraculous, from our founder, to the period immediately after his supposed death (the resurrection), and to the rest of history that follows (33 AD to current day). In comparison to our faith, what can other religions muster?

> Like I said, I did watch the whole video and it didn't debunk anything.

Your comprehension of the debunking is not what determines whether it is debunked or not. I am referring to scientific standards, based on microbiology and replication principles.

If you have faith that assumes that such intricate designs happen "naturally", then you have a preconceived bias.

> And we have SO many examples of intermediate forms and "missing links" in the fossil record that our body of knowledge has grown exponentially just in my lifetime

Not really. Morphology (guessing species from bones) is a pseudoscience. You can objectively see from modern Dwarves, Pygmies and Giants that the Human species can take a huge range of forms.

The diagrams in books are art-work, not actual observed or repeatable science.

> It kind of reminds me of that scene from Futurama with the eternally shifting goalpost.

That's a strawman fallacy. JudeoChristianity has claimed a form of evolution (actually devoluation) for 4000 years because it claims that all species today come from higher forms (KINDS) that were on the Ark. Darwin got things exactly backwards when he analyzed finches.

Ironically, atheists keep trying to move the goalposts from Darwin's claims "Origin of Species via Natural Selection".

Did you ever notice that Labs never create Life or higher species, despite Evolution's claim that this happens by "naturally" or by accident? The hand-waving of "Billions of years" is a red-herring fallacy, because time is an enemy of the molecules of life.

> It sounds like you've fallen into a common misunderstanding about entropy.

No, it sounds like you are not familiar with how Information Theory debunks that. With computer models, we can test what types of molecules can form under what conditions. A "Normal Distribution" forms from that, and it is no where near the molecules needed for life. Laboratory results and Information Theory mathematically shows that despite ideal conditions, there is no sign that life could form.

Furthermore, even if you had the molecules for life, there is no evidence that you can make them alive. Corpses have all the necessary ingredients, but do not become alive.

> Would you say that the formation of crystalline structures is divinely guided by the intervention of a supernatural designer?

No offense, but that's an argument from ignorance about the difference between crystalline structures and the molecules of life. The molecules of life are extremely unlikely and would require extreme conditions to bond.

Dr. Tour shows several forms of deceptive information (lies) in Scientific publications on this subject:

You are being Deceived : https://youtu.be/v36_v4hsB-Y

> But you're also insinuating that evolution is progress

It sounds like you are not familiar with Information Theory. Again, it is able to gauge "progress" in terms of the number of molecules and structures.

> The default position is to accept things at face value and only so far as we can without needing to invoke additional assumptions as per Occam

No, that's a logical leap and huge assumption. Good scientists seek to minimize assumptions.

By your logic, if you find a book in the woods, would you assume it is "natural" ?

> the burden of proof is on the one making the claim

Agreed. Atheists/naturalists are claiming that Life and species rose up "naturally", yet they never demonstrate this happening. Haven't you noticed that they've never replicated this in billion-dollar Labs, despite trillion-dollar market incentives and their assumption that it happened accidentally ?

> why can't we just as easily say that about the universe and cut out the middle man?

Haven't you considered that naturalism is a middle-man? The Logic of Cause and Effect rules out naturalism as a middle man because Actuality always comes from higher Potentiality. In other words, ince we are living and conscious, it is most logical to consider that there is a higher form of life and consciousness at the beginning.

The former Atheist Dr. Ed Feser steps through this logic academically in his book : 5 Proofs for God

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser-ebook/dp/B0754MJFMG