Expert: Philip A. Stahl - 8/10/2009

Question
I am a recent convert to Catholicism and rather firm in it and I have been studying various religions recently. I have just viewed some of your arguments and answers to questions posted by atheists and theists and they are all quite reasonable. I have a few questions for you.

1) hypothetically speaking, if God did exist, what evidence would prove his existence?

2)What personally lead you to become an Atheist?

Answer
Hello,

May I say, Thomas, that I certainly enjoyed reading your 'Summa Theologica'?

On a serious note, it is good to have a questioner who has seriously reviewed previous answers given to questions. It means the questions forthcoming are more likely to be thoughtful, which yours are.

Let's take each one:

1) The difficulty with this question is that the answer assumes there is one indisputable definition for God, which there is not. Obviously, if the definition is changeable, no single answer can be given (For example, a Socinian deity, such as a good Christian friend of mine embraces, would have a much lower threshold for 'proving its existence' since the Socinian deity is neither omniscient, nor omnipotent)

To fix ideas, the late populist philosopher Joseph Campbell ('The Power of Myth', Anchor Books, New York, p. 56) once observed:

"’God’ is an ambiguous word in our language because it appears to refer to something that is known"


James Byrne ('GOD', Continuum Press, 2001, p. 151 - see also my review of it at amazon.com) is equally adamant:

"The idea of God as Being is the creation of the philosophical gaze, a result of the drive to objectification which is the hallmark of the history of metaphysics. It is the ‘God’ which is argued about in theism and atheism, and which can only be a projection of humans.”

Byrne then goes on to cite the work of French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion (from his work, ‘God Without Being’, 1991) who challenges people to think of -G---D- or God in a non-conceptual way. That is, only with a "strike through" when the word is written, to indicate no one has the capacity to describe, grasp, conceptualize or manipulate the underlying entity. In effect, as Byrne observes, “to think G-O-D  is unthinkable is to reject the entire basis of onto-theology.”

But let us say that a definition of God is allowed, it is imbued with certain conceptual overtones, and that these include defined attributes that a (standard) Christian God ought to have including:

1- Aseity (also, non-contingency, or dependence for existence on anything else)
2- Omniscience
3-Omnipotence
4- Omnipresence

We then ask, IF such a deity DID exist, what might provide proof that it existed to a limited human brain?

To my mind, only one set of events qualifies, and those would be a succession of intelligently calibrated events in which natural laws are subtly violated and done in a manner that translates into a specific (temporary) pattern. Say, analogous to results that clever humans might find if they received radio signals from a source in Cygnus, and determined the content was intelligent and in radix mathematical notation). I also assume such a sequence of revelatory events is subtle and not analogous to having to slam humans over the head with a metaphorical 'sledge hammer'. (Any deity that needs to do that, in my mind, is comical, not real.)

For example, on day one, the polarization of all stellar sources was linearly polarized. Or, the Stokes parameters U = 1, Q = 1, and V = 0. Not that the U, Q parameters are for quantifying the linear polarization and the V for circular). Then, on day two, astronomers validate the alteration of the Stokes parameters, so U = 0, Q = 0 and V = 1 and this alternation keeps going for a number of days - say equal to a Mersenne Prime Number. (You can google this)

Normally, of course, electromagnetic waves - say from visible light, would not behave this way. So if all stellar sources are suddenly linearly polarized, it would betray the interference of some external agent unaccounted for.

I am not sure this could be called "proof" - but let's say it might at least be high QA evidence. A recurring pattern of altering polarizations ending in a sequence that adds up to a Mersenne prime, is even better. Then, adding another sequence of altered polarizations ending in a higher Mersenne prime is even better yet.

Something of great power is clearly sending a message. All available knowledge of even exobiology would indicate it is probably not any alien entity but this would have to be eliminated, and I'd say it would be done quickly. (To alter the polarizations of all stellar sources - including extragalactic- in the way described an "alien" agent would have to be essentially "omnipresent" and "omnipotent") to be able to do it in a defined cadence corresponding to a mathematical profile)


Of course, someone might say instead of this - just "part all all the oceans of the world" a la Red Sea and Moses style, on the same day (and do so in a manner not injurious to anyone) ...while also saving all people diagnosed with terminal cancer. All around the world.

Maybe, but I am trying to be realistic, and the evidence so far, is that even an omni-attribute deity isn't about to interfere in human or terrestrial events to "prove himself". But, mayhap he'd do it in a subtler fashion?


2) What personally led me to become an Atheist is something that may well perplex and astound you.

At the time, I was at a Jesuit school, Loyola University in New Orleans, ca. 1965, and the great Existentialist philosopher Jean -Paul Sartre (author of 'Being and Nothingness') had been invited to speak at the Loyola Fieldhouse. His philosophy of existentialism so captivated me that I read his book and from there was led over about ten years to be an Atheist.

Of course, the transition from Catholic to Atheist was not straightforward or so simple, but included many many forays along a maze of religious as well as philosophical encounters, including debates held in public forums - with teaching colleagues (over Evolution), and ministers, and one Anglican priest. But the main point, is that Sarte launched me on my way of inquiry ...leading to my Atheism.

Bear in mind also, while at Loyola, I had to take the normal set of theological courses required, including biblical exegesis, textual analysis, and in depth study of the quadriform gospels.  Also comparative theology. I have always believed this background prepared me to be much better at clarifying arguments, examining the positions of theists, than I otherwise would be. In other words, it permitted me to put myself precisely in the position of theists and see first hand where they were coming from.

Physics, especially quantum physics, also helped in my pursuit, and made me realize that 'objective truth' was not possible in certain areas. And even the objective truth delivered by empirical science, is often only tentative and relative, lasting only until more sophisticated techniques or advanced theories replaced the progenitors.

If you are interested in much more detail concerning my thinking you can consult my reviews on Amazon, and also my latest book, 'Atheism: A Beginner's Handbook' provides many insights, especially how and why I found theism in all its forms lacking. Not able to deliver any final answers.

I hope you have found this response useful