Proofs for the Existence of God



Proofs for the Existence of God

Religious Experiences

 

Varieties of Proofs for the Existence of God

I. Experience

II. Psychic Phenomena

III. Revelation

IV. Reason

OVERVIEW

I. Experience

A. DirectEncounter with the supernatural

Mystical experience- union with the deity/ supernatural

B.Indirect

Miracles

Psychic Phenomena

C. Existence of the spirit or soul

Apparitions

Reincarnation memories

Seances

NDE –near death experiences

Death Bed Observations

B. Existence of deity/ deities channeling

III. Revelation Sacred Texts-

Inspired by the deity/intermediary

Dictated by the deity/intermediary

Written by the deity/intermediary

Proofs for the Existence of God

Religious Experiences

I. Introduction

II. The Questions

III. The Mystical Experience

IV. Problems with Religious Experiences

V. FINAL QUESTIONS:

I. Introduction

The heart of religion is in the religious experience. Just what is it and what can be deduced from it?

For many religious people there is in the center of their religious nature the feeling that there is something more than their individual consciousness could contact. There is a sense of something "more" or bigger than anything in the known universe. This issues into a hypothesis or idea of a supernatural reality or dimension of reality beyond that which normal sensation can encounter.

A Religious experience is an encounter of a human being with a supernatural being, be it a deity or an emissary or intermediary for the deity, nevertheless a spiritual entity.

It is a numinal experience. Religious experiences are for the most part, individual and esoteric.

The MYSTICAL experience is a particular variety of religious experience in which the subject is transformed and reports the loss of individuality, the oneness of all reality, union with the deity, the unity of the subject of the experience with the object of the experience.

The commonalities in such experience around the world is termed the consensus mysticum.It has been described by Rudolph Otto as involving an experience characterized as being tremendum et fascinans

II. The Questions

The questions are:

Is the subject of a religious experience justified inferring from the psychological experience to the existential or the ontological reality of the object of that experience: the supernatural being?

Is anyone else justified in reaching the conclusion that a supernatural being exists based upon the report of the individual who has made the claim to have had the religious experience?

Does the accumulation of reports from such witnesses to religious experiences justify the claim that a supernatural or spiritual being, a deity, a transcendent reality , exists?

III. The Mystical Experience

The MYSTICAL experience is a particular variety of religious experience in which the subject is transformed and reports the loss of individuality, the oneness of all reality, union with the deity, the unity of the subject of the experience with the object of the experience. It is an experience which posits the oneness of all reality and the unity of all. In particular, the Mystical Experience involves the unity of the subject with its object(the deity, the totality).

The commonalities in such experience around the world is termed the consensus mysticum.It has been described by Rudolph Otto as involving an experience characterized as being tremendum et fascinansWilliam James has described such experiences as having the following characteristics:

Ineffable noetic

Antinaturalistic transient

Passive pantheistic

optimistic

James held that such experiences are powerful and lead the subject of such an experience to a belief in a supernatural entity.

James held:

Mystical states are authoritative over the individual who has the experience

Mystical states have NO authority over individuals who have not had such an experience

Mystical states break down the authority of ordinary consciousness and sense knowledge. Such states offer hypotheses which others may ignore

Such religious experiences have consequences for those who encounter them. They issue into feelings and actions.

 IV. Problems with Religious Experiences

Not all who learn of the reports of such religious experiences accept them as conclusive evidence for the existence of a supernatural reality or spiritual beings. Many have attempted to give alternative accounts of such experiences that do not involve acceptance of the existence of any supernatural entities or reality.

Naturalism is an approach to religious experiences which explains them as being the result of natural forces. It accounts for such phenomena in natural terms without recourse to anything that is beyond the physical realm. In general, all reality and all experiences can be accounted for (fully explained) in terms of physical processes.

There are different explanations for the origin and nature of religious experiences. What they have in common is the rejection of a supernatural source or object and the attempt to offer a full explanation in empirically verifiable terms.

Psychological explanations have been offered by several theoreticians, including Sigmund Freud. Sociological explanations have also been developed by several other scientists, such as Emil Durkheim. What they have in common is the refusal to accept religious experiences as being truthful, accurate, or believable in so far as the existence of any supernatural reality. One of the principle reasons for withholding acceptance of the reports is that the experiences can not be verified and what they report encountering can not be verified empirically.

ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS

1. Persons are mistaken, e.g., optical illusion, misinterpretation..

2. Persons are under the influence of mind altering substances

3. Persons are suffering from brain malfunctioning, e.g., chemical imbalance

4. Persons are under the influence of group influence-social psychology

5. Persons are making a false report to get attention

6.Persons are making a false report to raise money.

7.Persons are making a false report to please others and gain acceptance.

8.Persons are making a false report to get power.

Questions

A. Truthfullness

Are the religious experiences veridical?

What is the scientific analysis of the religious experiences ?

What are the genetic and causal conditions of religious experiences ?

-in the human race ?

-in the individual?

Is the religious experience veridical? Is it truthful? Is it a report which others can accept as being Correct? Truthful? Accurate?

Humans should accept religious experiences as being veridical UNLESS there exists positive grounds for thinking otherwise, for thinking that the reports are not truthful, accurate or correct.

Some claim that there are positive grounds for rejecting the reports of such experiences, i.e., against their being veridical experiences

mystics are abnormal: they tend to be sexually repressed

mystical experience is always mixed with other elements such as sexual emotion or imagery

In response to these observations some offer that perhaps the human being must be in an altered state of consciousness in order to have the experience of the greater (supernatural) reality which the ordinary consciousness can not contain or reach. Sexual abstinence may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having such an encounter.

C.D. Broad notes that reports or descriptions of these religious experiences involve concepts and beliefs that are:

inadequate to the facts

highly confused

mixed with error and nonsense

subject to change in time

Broad notes that these features are also true of scientific concepts and beliefs and that they have and do change in time.

Perhaps religious experiences are not pure delusions or illusions. Perhaps religious experiences are only encountered by those who have an ability to experience them. Perhaps there are people, even many people, who are "deaf" to such experiences.

Wallace Matson:

If the subject of a religious experience is to be believed there are certain requirements to be met. Any perception of an individual should be publicly confirmed. No private experience can establish the existence of God. You would first need to establish the existence of God by other means on order to confirm that what was experienced was both God and True.

No indescribable experience can be publicly confirmed

No mystical experience can be publicly confirmed.

Mystics appear similar to people who are deluded, or mentally ill, not adjusted to reality. Their claims can not be accepted without evidence. But you can not have evidence without a prior belief in God.

To confirm what any subject is experiencing there must be "checkable" statements.

Similar to a blind person confirming what a sighted person sees.

With the religious experiences there are no such "checkable" statements, so there can be no confirmation. Hence, they can not serve as a proof of the existence of supernatural entities because they are not veridical.

Gary Gutting

The claim is made that in order to establish the veridical nature of religious claims there are three criteria to be met:

many should have the experience

it should exist in different cultures

the experience should produce a major transformation involving ,in part, the moral life of the individual

Gary Gutting claims that the three conditions are met by reports of religious experiences and so they do provide a justification for belief in a supernatural being, a deity, God.

Louis P. Pojman:

There is both a strong justification and a weak justification to be offered that Religious experiences do provide evidence of the existence of a supernatural entity, a deity.

Strong: this argument would be so strong as to oblige all people to believe in God.

Weak: this justification provides rational support only for those who have had such an experience (or already accepted the world view that holds such experiences are possible)

Pojman argues against such a strong argument

the reports are too amorphous

they reports are circular- acceptance of them depends on background belief in God

reports are not capable of being confirmed as with perceptual experiences

thus, they are not checkable, not predictable

V. FINAL QUESTIONS:

Are there reasons to think that the reports of religious experiences are not reliable?

Can the reports be accepted as being true?

Can they be verified?

Do they need to be?

Can reports of religious experiences be used as support for a belief in a deity, the supernatural realm?

Proofs for the Existence of God

Miracles

I. Introduction

II. The Questions

III. Problems with Miracles

IV. FINAL QUESTIONS:

Introduction

Many but not all of the religions of the world have as part of their traditions claims of Miracles.The Miracles have different forms and play different roles within each religion. The religions of the West have many things in common that have a bearing on the way in which they view Miracles. They share in being religions of the Book or sacred text. They place importance on events which have been reported to have occurred in history. They rely on the existence of Miracles. The events which are reported to have taken place in the time of Moses are key to the acceptance of the idea of the One God for the peoples of Israel and all who follow after them. The events during the times of Jesus, the Christ, are also the basis for the acceptance of Jesus as being the Son of God by the followers of Jesus. The spread of Islam is also an event regarded as miraculous and a proof of the legitimacy of the claims of Mohammed. So, Miracles are important for the Western religions.

The Miracles have served as the foundation for the historical proof of the existence of the God of the western religions. The leadership of the religions of the West do not want miracle taken lightly and do not want false claims of miracles. These religions will often be the first to investigate claims of miraculous events in order to disprove them! The concern is that if people come to accept the claim of a miracle and it later turns out to be disproved, then those who had come to believe in it might come not only to stop believing in that particular "miracle" that had been disproved but in all other such claims and thus might come to loose their faith altogether. The fear is that people would think something similar to this: "If I could be fooled into thinking this recent event was a miracle, then what about those people long ago who reported experiencing a miracle? Could it be possible that they too were deceived? Or mistaken?"

II. The Questions

The questions are:

1. What exactly are Miracles ?2. Do they prove the existence of a supernatural realm?

A deity? God? The supreme Being?

3. What does it take to prove that a miracle has taken place?

4. Could it ever be proven that a miracle had taken place?

III. Problems with Miracles

The Problem of Definition

Exactly what constitutes a miracle is a matter for careful consideration , given the importance of such events , should they be correct and truthful.

A. Unusual or Extraordinary EventSome consider any unusual event as a miracle or at least an unusual event with a positive outcome, eg.g. winning Lotto. Negative events with less probability (being hit by lightning, three separate times) are not considered as miracles. This is a very weak use of the term "miracle" .

This can not be the basis for a proof for the existence of God because unusual events occur all the time and have explanations using natural factors.

B. No explanation

Some consider events for which there are no explanations as miracles. It isn’t clear whether this would mean no explanation at the present time or no explanation possible. This can not be used as a proof for the existence of God because these events could receive a completely naturalistic explanation in the future after science has advanced.It is possible that events could be explained by advanced science. It is even possible that events that appear "miraculous" because there is no explanation at present could be the result of aliens with advanced technology causing them to occur here on this planet.

C. The Requirements of a Definition of Miracles

What is needed is a definition that is strong enough so that the events claimed to be Miracles would establish the existence of a supernatural and very powerful entitity, i.e. , God.

What is needed is an event that could ONLY be caused by God. This event can have no other possible explanation! So, what results is the strong definition of Miracles .

Miracles are events which violate the laws of nature itself. This is an event that could only be caused by the author of those laws. It can not be an event which has no present naturalistic explanation, for in the future there might be one. It could not be caused by advanced technology possessed by advanced alien societies.

The Problem of Verification

Not all who learn of the reports of such Miracles accept them as conclusive evidence for the existence of a supernatural reality or spiritual beings. Many have attempted to give alternative accounts of such experiences that do not involve acceptance of the existence of any supernatural entities or reality.

Naturalism is an approach to religious experiences and Miracles which explains them as being the result of natural forces. It accounts for such phenomena in natural terms without recourse to anything that is beyond the physical realm. In general, all reality and all experiences can be accounted for (fully explained) in terms of physical processes.

There are different explanations for the origin and nature of religious experiences and Miracles. What they have in common is the rejection of a supernatural source or object and the attempt to offer a full explanation in empirically verifiable terms.

Examples of Miracles

Creation of the Universe

Miracles in the time of Moses

Burning Bush

Staff into snake

Plague of locusts

Plague of frogs

Nile from blue to red

Death of children of the Egyptians

Parting of the "Red" sea

Christ

virgin birth

wedding feast-water into wine

walking on water

cures of the blind, deaf, lepers

multiplication of the loaves and the fishes

raising the dead-Lazarus

Resurrection

More recent phenomena

statues that bleed

paintings that cry

stones that drink milk

apparitions on walls, floors, windows, bagels!

The Arguments

David Hume:

Hume maintains that the preponderance of the evidence will always be hat the laws of nature are being followed. Any claim that there has been a violation of those laws would need to be subtantiated (supported) by clear and convincing evidence. Since there is so much evidence that the laws are not violated , any claim to the contrary would need to have a good deal of evidence to support it. Hume does not believe that such evidence exists, has ever existed or could ever exist!!!

Evidence in support of Miracles would need to satisfy the following criteria:

sufficient number of witnesses

witnesses of good sense and education

witnesses of integrity and good reputation

public performance of the miracle event

These conditions have not been satisfied.

Hume argues that Miracles do not occur and that there is a logical obstcle to humans ever proving that events are Miracles .

Richard Swinburne:

Swinburne believes that :

evidence does exist that Miracles can occur

evidence does exist that Miracles can be the result of a deity, of God

The event must be contrary to the laws of nature and with no evidence that it could be repeated under similar circumstances. The event must be seen as the result of the intervention or action of a god who is not a material being.

Swinburne concludes that there is no logical impossibility in there being an event that satisfies his conditions. He does not offer evidence that any such event has ever occurred. He only argues that Miracles could occur.

J.L. Makie:

Makie argues that there are epistemological reasons why there will be no substantiation of a claim that Miracles have taken place. That there is no justification to believe in Miracles .

For there to be a proof of Miracles two conditions need to be satisfied:

proof the Miracle event has occurred

proof that Miracle event violated the laws of Nature

Makie’s point is this:That there is so much proof against satisfying condition 2 that if you satisfied condition 1 there would be the claim that the event did not satisfy condition 2. If you had an event that would clearly satisfy condition 2 you would claim that the event did not satisfy condition 1.

Richard Swinburne:

Swinburne argues that:

it is plausible that there is a God- a supreme being

it is plausible that God would reveal god’s own existenceit is plausible that god would confirm the revelation by MiraclesThere is reason (a priori) to believe and expect that God would reveal god’s existence to humans, that God would want humans to know( in some primitive manner) that god does exist. Therefore, there is reason to believe that revelation does occur and that it is confirmed by Miracles and that Miracles that are predictive are primary examples of the Miracles that would confirm the Revelation.

V. FINAL QUESTIONS:

Are there reasons to think that the reports of Miracles are not reliable?

Can the reports of Miracles be accepted as being true?

Can Miracles ever be verified?

Do claims of Miracles need to be authenticated?

Can reports of Miracles be used as support for a belief in a deity, the supernatural realm?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download