Prove God's Existence

[MrFungus420]

Yes, I'm sorry but a law differs very much from a theory. Shall I explain the difference?

No need, I am aware of the difference. Just as I'm aware that creationism doesn't qualify as a theory. It is nothing more than conjecture based on religious belief.

You can explain it no better than I. We're both relying on theories except my is interjected with faith. That's the only difference yet you fail to see it since you're a slave to reason.

Again, creationism isn't a theory. Evolution is because it has empirical evidence that can support it. The only way that creationists can find anything even closely resembling proof is to start with the objective of proving the Bible correct. To do this they have made up all sorts of bizarre "what if" scenarios. The most common being, what if God made it so it looks like that, trying to counter things like geological and paleontological evidence. Claims like "what if radiological decay was much faster a couple thousand years ago" and "what if the speed of light isn't constant".

There is also the tendency among creationist thinking that pointing out possible faults in the theory of evolution is the same as proof for creationism. It isn't. Disproving one does not prove the other.

"A slave to reason"? Gladly. I want proof. I won't blindly take the word of a book when the only thing that backs it up, is itself.

Neither makes sense. That's the beautiful thing about faith, it needn't make sense.

I prefer things that do make sense. Especially when trying to discover the reason for something or how something happened.

And yet we still know so little...

True, our knowledge is limited. However, the difference being that with science our knowledge is expanding, with religion it stagnates.

So where did this complexity of complexities come from?

It's complex because we don't fully understand it. As our understanding grows, things tend to become less complex. For example, if the String theory is proven true, it will tie together a lot of things that we don't really understand, eventually making our understanding more clear, and making the universe a seem little less complex. We are trying to discover how things work, and why they are how they are. Science isn't trying to make things up, it's trying to uncover what is already there.

The same can be said for the converse of this logic.

My original statement this is a reply to is:

I've yet to see anything resembling proof for the existence of a god that can't be shown to be fallacious.

Now, in order for the converse to be true, then you would have to discount multiple branches of science and large quantities of what they've discovered.

Unless, you trying to say that anyone is claiming proof on the nonexistence of God, in which case I would agree with you. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, that is why the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Saying there is a god is making a claim, saying that you don't believe that is a denial of the claim, it isn't a claim in and of itself.

Why do they have any meaning if you're ultimately going to be whiped out from all memory? Who will be around to care that you gave some spare change to a homeless man 50 billion years from now or that you lead a good life? Without a God there is no purpose or meaning.

So, you only think that something can have meaning if you are going to be rewarded for it? You feel that a good act doesn't have meaning without acknowledgement? That seems to be a very selfish attitude.

I think that doing something good is intrinsically meaningful. I don't need to be rewarded to do good things. I do what I feel is right without the promise or expectation of reward

To what end?

Again, the original statement:

and it is up to us to make our lives meaningful.

Simply because it is the right thing to do.

When will you liberate yourself from the shackles of "reason" and realize there are greater powers at work than yourself.

When reason shows that to be the case. In other words, I never will give up reason. However, if God is ever proven to exist, I will admit to having been mistaken. I can admit to being mistaken. Could you say the same thing? If the Big Bang and evolutionary theories are proven to be absolutely true, will you be able to admit to having been wrong?

When will you realize that all religions are equally valid, and the only reason that you think that your religion is any more validity is because of your belief in it?

What if aliens came to Earth and said they were messangers of God? That Christianity was the only true religion, and that they were able offer hard, scientific proof that God existed and that Jesus was the Mesiah. Would you drop to your knees and convert on the spot? Would you repent for your sins and beg God for forgiveness? Would you blah blah? Blah blah - blah blah?

Nice try though.

Please don't lump somebody else's argument in with what I've said. If you want to address what they said, then address it seperately. I agree, that it is a useless "what if" argument.

 

[Wyldinstinct]

Yes, I'm sorry but a law differs very much from a theory. Shall I explain the difference?

You can explain it no better than I. We're both relying on theories except my is interjected with faith. That's the only difference yet you fail to see it since you're a slave to reason.

We're no more slave to reason than you're slave to religion. Your faith in God is full of un-answered reasons why you should do this or believe that. Religion tells you to do as your told and don't question. Logic and reason pose questions and answers them. The answers are difinitive, not left open to thousands of interpretations.

Neither makes sense. That's the beautiful thing about faith, it needn't make sense.

Umm... yes.. call me crazy, but the entire foundation of what you believe in and how your direct your life needs to make sense. You mean to tell me that some great unseen force of indifference that is supossedly both benevolent and manevolent wants me to worship him and love him unconditionally? Sorry, you need to make sense of that for me. I need something more that "Because it's his will."

And yet we still know so little...

No we don't. We know a hell of a lot! We have answered so many questions about how we got here, where we may be going and how we fit into the universe that it's staggering. We keep finding new answers to new questions every day with science. Sounds alot like... hmm.. what's the word..EVOLVING.

So where did this complexity of complexities come from?

Give us a couple more decades and we'll have the answer for you. I'm sure it won't be 2000 years and counting like some lines of thought...

Why do they have any meaning if you're ultimately going to be whiped out from all memory? Who will be around to care that you gave some spare change to a homeless man 50 billion years from now or that you lead a good life? Without a God there is no purpose or meaning.

The purpose or meaning is to provide some confort or good will to another individual at that moment. I certainly don't need gods influence to help a homeless man get a hot meal for the night. And I certainly could care less if someone remember it or me 50 billion years from now. I lead a good life to influence my kids to treat people with care and respect. I lead a hard working life to provide comfort and stability to my family. I don't need God to validate my actions. All I need to see is the smile on my childrens faces when they know that I love them.

When will you liberate yourself from the shackles of "reason" and realize there are greater powers at work than yourself.

You have got to be kidding. "The shackles of reason"? You must have voted for W.

What if aliens came to Earth and said they were messangers of God? That Christianity was the only true religion, and that they were able offer hard, scientific proof that God existed and that Jesus was the Mesiah. Would you drop to your knees and convert on the spot? Would you repent for your sins and beg God for forgiveness? Would you blah blah? Blah blah - blah blah?

Then I'd say "hey, thanks for clearing that up. Tell me more, blah blah."

Nice try though.

Wish I could say the same...

 

[leejosepho]

Let me ask you a hypothetical question.

Sure ...

What if ...
What if ...
What if ...
What if ...
What if ...
Would you still ...
Or would you ...

Which one is the hypothetical one, eh?!

But to save us some time here, I will attempt to respond to each ...

What if another species from another place in the universe visited earth and confessed that they created humans?

Confessed? Had some kind of crime been committed?!

Oh well ...

That would prove something I already know: We were created by an entity with abilities beyond our own.

What if they gave hard physical evidence that they were responsible for the creation of humans, backed by documentation?

I would remind them they had already confessed, and that we were already aware we had not created ourselves ... but that the evolutionists were nevertheless likely going to put up quite an argument against them anyway.

What if they also gave proof to the fact that they "staged" religion as a means to control the human masses during "less civilized" stages of our development?

That would not bother me, for man could never have civilized himself anyway.

What if it were revealed that we are just some grand science project of theirs designed just to see if they could achieve creation of life?

I would commend them for a job well done.

What if they proved that there was no God as we know it?

As we know it? What do you mean by that? Many people here seem to believe or even clearly insist there is none in the first place. But anyway, I might ask something like, “Well, then, just who the ‘ell are you?!”

Would you still feel this excruciating pain knowing for fact that christianity was a hoax?

Whoa! I thought you had said something about “civilized” ... and now you bring Christianity into the picture?!

Whew. But in any case, and since I actually abandoned Christianity long ago when it only left me in its pain anyway, that would make no difference to me.

Or would you be relieved to finally know the truth?

You did not give me enough options there.

And I know to you, faith is the truth.

You will have to explain that one to me, for “the truth” is the truth (lower case), and my faith is actually in The One who *is* The Truth (upper case).

But I mean the truth, right before your eyes.

Okay, let us add ‘em up to see the truth we are here talking about:

-- man was created by an entity with abilities beyond our own;
-- that job was well done;
-- man could never have civilized himself;
-- the evolutionists argue against all of that.

No problem here ...

 

[leejosepho]

I would put it to you that your belief is what did it for you ...

The fallacious point is thinking that [your recovery] constitutes viable proof of something other than the power of your beliefs.

Understood, but I maintain it is fallacious (at least for me) to believe there is any such thing as "the power of your beliefs."

Not to trivialize, but to use the simplest of examples known to me:

Since Dorothy had never left Kansas in the first place, her seemingly powerful "Just believe!" was actually completely frivolous to any purpose other than the reinforcement of deception, illusion and/or even delusion.

However, I truly *was* caught in something I absolutely could *not* overcome with anything so giddy as "Just believe!", and my ego had to thus be smashed before I could quite willingly "get out of the way" in order for recovery to ultimately be "worked" upon me.

Belief is not to be slighted, though, as it surely does/did play a part suggested in the essence of something said to me long ago:

"Progress can begin from a point of at least being willing to believe what is necessary - reconciliation and transformation - is actually possible." Or ...

"As soon as a man can say that he does believe, or is [at least] willing to believe, we emphatically assure him that he is on his way. It has been repeatedly proven among us that upon this simple cornerstone* a wonderfully effective spiritual structure can be built" ("A.A.", page 47, emphasis added).
(*Belief is foundational, not powerful.)

Quite simply: Man always acts upon whatever he might even but merely *want* to believe in order to discover the actual truth of a given matter, not to create or to even activate a truth itself.

 

[kal-el]

Yes, this should be interesting to say the least. IMO, it is exactly the same as trying to prove the existance of santa clause.

 

[steen]

You can't prove he exists, but what other explanation is there for everything in the world.

Chemistry, physics, biology etc. They provide an excellent explanation.:lol:

 

[steen]

Yes, I'm sorry but a law differs very much from a theory. Shall I explain the difference?

Do you know the difference? A Natural Law is a fixed relationship between different components. A Scientific Theory is a concept thested through the Scientific Method to be the best explanation for everything observed in a given field.

Why do they have any meaning if you're ultimately going to be whiped out from all memory? Who will be around to care that you gave some spare change to a homeless man 50 billion years from now or that you lead a good life? Without a God there is no purpose or meaning.

Wow, this is a rather astonishing declaration regarding behavior. You are saying that the only thing that keeps Christians from being amoral savages is the fear of judgement day?

 

[leejosepho]

... a rather astonishing declaration regarding behavior ...
... the only thing that keeps Christians from being amoral savages is the fear of judgement day?

It would be wrong of me to speak for Christians, but at least in my own case, "the fear of judgement day" and a desire to hear "Well done!" are definitely parallel factors here ...

... and I contend that the same is essentially true of all people, including naysayers, who make any claim at all as to personal morality or goodness.

 

[kal-el]

like the author of this thread, most people start to disbelieve in god when hard times come. you have to realize that god doesnt create bad things. bad things are simply the absence of good things. darkness is hte absence of light, hunger is the absence of food, disease is the absence of health.

Exactly. "God" is simply an amplifying lever for revenge. What the **** does "God" do. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. "God" never intervenes, if he is "supernatural", like some people like to pretend, why does he let all the atrocities go on? I highly doubt a "mystical" God condones of the hudreds of US coffins coming home, or the destruction in the city of Fallujah, or all the death from coalition bombings. We seem to be imposing our democracy with missiles, and our Christian values through the use of torture. Remember, this illegal invasion , and all wars, was waged in the name of "God".

 

[SKILMATIC]

Exactly. "God" is simply an amplifying lever for revenge. What the **** does "God" do. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. "God" never intervenes, if he is "supernatural", like some people like to pretend, why does he let all the atrocities go on? I highly doubt a "mystical" God condones of the hudreds of US coffins coming home, or the destruction in the city of Fallujah, or all the death from coalition bombings. We seem to be imposing our democracy with missiles, and our Christian values through the use of torture. Remember, this illegal invasion , and all wars, was waged in the name of "God".

He gives people choices to make and let them chose and reap what he sowes. God wont appear before someone kills someone and stop it but will avenge the persons death. God in no way condones any killings unless its self defense. You are misconstruing Gods teachings. In no way did he condone torturing or mass killings. In no way does he condone any violence that is carried out onhis children. He is as peaceful as ghandi and yet as fair as the law. If that made sense.

It is hard to explain and get you to understand Gods presence for you have a negative view of him anyway. But you cant determine what God stands for by what sinful humans do. We are always going to make mistakes for we arent and never will be perfect. So to conclude of your beleif of God becasue of what I will do or say or anyone else for that matter is wrong. You must read his word and conclude on your own.

 

[Thinker]

... and I contend that the same is essentially true of all people, including naysayers, who make any claim at all as to personal morality or goodness.

Please do not assume that your beliefs apply to "all people". Morality need have
nothing to do with religion or belief in the supernatural.

I try to be a moral and "good" person based on how I would like others to
treat me, but I have no doubt that when I die, I will simply cease to exist. I
have no need to fear judgement to be moral and I do not crave any
recognition for what might be considered "good" behaviour.

Your contention is false.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'm new here, but that won't stop me.

Let's start with Epicurus:

The Riddle of Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Interesting. But meaningless. He doesn't define the word "evil", and hence the entire argument is empty. Evil is a completely antrhopocentric concept, a personal judgement that some event or attitude is inhuman.

Using the concept of "evil" to judge the acts of any god places human limits on god. According to christian mythology, there's no place better to be than dead and in heaven with the chrisian god. Also, since christianity deals with concepts of immortality, the time spent by any soul on this earth is essentially zero, compared to the semi-eternal existence waiting in heaven, or hell. Thus it's hard to imagine that God would view minor temporary discomforts in this world as evil.

So scratch Epicurus's empty argument.

Let's assume that evil is an active spiritual force, call it Evil. Where could Evil have come from? Christianity claims God is perfect. Judeo-Christian mythology claims that God created everything from void. If there was absolutely nothing except God, and God never makes mistakes, how does Evil come into existence?

The argument that Lucifer introduced Evil is simply circular, since Lucifer is allegedly the first and best work of a God that doesn't make mistakes. The inescapable logic is that if a malevolent Evil spiritual force exists, it is a deliberate creation of God.

Hence all arguments that God is Good, and only Good, are false.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What if aliens came to Earth and said they were messangers of God? That Christianity was the only true religion, and that they were able offer hard, scientific proof that God existed and that Jesus was the Mesiah. Would you drop to your knees and convert on the spot? Would you repent for your sins and beg God for forgiveness? Would you blah blah? Blah blah - blah blah?

Well, I'd have no problem with that. I contend that ALL religions are human artifacts. If an extraterrrestrial species showed up and documented that they created the Christian mythology, all I'd have to do is alter my belief to include bug-eyed monsters. Woudn't bother me in the least.

But that would certainly destroy the notion that Christianity is a special gift from God, wouldn't it? Were would the Christians go from there?

 

[MrFungus420]

Well, I'd have no problem with that. I contend that ALL religions are human artifacts. If an extraterrrestrial species showed up and documented that they created the Christian mythology, all I'd have to do is alter my belief to include bug-eyed monsters. Woudn't bother me in the least.

But that would certainly destroy the notion that Christianity is a special gift from God, wouldn't it? Were would the Christians go from there?

I'm willing to bet that they would deny it. Probably use an argument along the lines of the aliens are actually agents of Satan trying to turn man away from God.

Then they would go back to the old saw of demanding that they prove that God doesn't exist.

 

[kal-el]

God wont appear before someone kills someone and stop it but will avenge the persons death. God in no way condones any killings unless its self defense. You are misconstruing Gods teachings. In no way did he condone torturing or mass killings.

How does a mythological figure avenge death? If he dosen't condone killing, then he wouldn't condone of killing under the guise of "pre-emptive strike?"

 

[leejosepho]

I try to be a moral and "good" person based on how I would like others to treat me ...

That was my point, Mr. Thinker, precisely, and as evidenced by my use of the word "essentially", with nothing intended, implied or even thought about beyond that. Each of us "fears" consequences of whatever kind from whomever - I never want to go back to prison - and we also seek approval, acceptance, praise and so on.

 

[leejosepho]

Re: I'm new here, but that won't stop me.

Let's assume that evil is an active spiritual force, call it Evil. Where could Evil have come from?

Personally, and while I do not know the best way to word this, I believe it was created right along with everything "good".

If there was absolutely nothing [prior to creation] except God, and God never makes mistakes, how does Evil come into existence?

Again, I believe He created it.

The inescapable logic is that if a malevolent Evil spiritual force exists, it is a deliberate creation of God.

Agreed.

Hence all arguments that God is Good, and only Good, are false.

No, His creation of evil would not make a sovereign creator any less "good" ... except, of course, as possibly "judged" by men who really and/or ultimately have nothing to say about what is either good or evil anyway.

 

[Thinker]

That was my point, Mr. Thinker, precisely, and as evidenced by my use of the word "essentially", with nothing intended, implied or even thought about beyond that. Each of us "fears" consequences of whatever kind from whomever - I never want to go back to prison - and we also seek approval, acceptance, praise and so on.

I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge that your post intended nothing, implied
nothing and had not been thought out. I think "meaninless" would be a
good description of it. Perhaps one day you will write something that is not so
riddled with escape routes that it actually means something.

 

[mwi]

Prove love exists.

 

[Ethereal]

No need, I am aware of the difference. Just as I'm aware that creationism doesn't qualify as a theory. It is nothing more than conjecture based on religious belief.

Technically the theory of "multiple dimensions" or the "string theory" (which I think you have confused with the concept of a meta-universe) doesn't necessarily qualify as a theory either, since it hasn't made falsifiable predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested.

Again, creationism isn't a theory. Evolution is because it has empirical evidence that can support it.

This would be a perfectly valid critisism of my logic if I were contesting the validity of evolution. But I'm not. I'm contesting the validity of your "multiple dimension theory" which if you really think about it is just as logical or illogical as creationism.

The only way that creationists can find anything even closely resembling proof is to start with the objective of proving the Bible correct.

My proof comes from scientific law that states energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, and subsequent to this the big bang theory cannot be explained by you since you cannot explain where the matter and energy came from that initially caused the big bang.

Not unless you resort to the string theory which is still in its larval stages.

To do this they have made up all sorts of bizarre "what if" scenarios. The most common being, what if God made it so it looks like that, trying to counter things like geological and paleontological evidence. Claims like "what if radiological decay was much faster a couple thousand years ago" and "what if the speed of light isn't constant".

Sorry. I'm not "they".

There is also the tendency among creationist thinking that pointing out possible faults in the theory of evolution is the same as proof for creationism. It isn't. Disproving one does not prove the other.

This may suprise you but I suscribe to the theory of evolution.

"A slave to reason"? Gladly. I want proof. I won't blindly take the word of a book when the only thing that backs it up, is itself.

I haven't refered to the Bible once, since in order to prove my point there is no need. I was trying to say something spiritual to my fellow Christians earlier but since you want to debate the specifics of astrophysics I'm more than happy to contest your knowledge of the subject.

I prefer things that do make sense. Especially when trying to discover the reason for something or how something happened.

What makes sense is relative to what we know, and as I said earlier, we know so little.

True, our knowledge is limited. However, the difference being that with science our knowledge is expanding, with religion it stagnates.

Science seeks the answer to a riddle that's already been solved.

With science our understanding expands, but with religion it culminates.

For example, if the String theory is proven true, it will tie together a lot of things that we don't really understand, eventually making our understanding more clear, and making the universe a seem little less complex.

I don't think you fully understand the nature of the string theory and how it pertains to this debate. The string theory, if proven true, would mean that there could be multiple dimensions, but this doesn't necessarily explain the anomoly involving my proposed violation of the law of conservation of matter and energy. Just because matter and energy are able to travel along new dimensional pathways doesn't mean the matter and energy in question didn't have to come from somewhere.

Now, in order for the converse to be true, then you would have to discount multiple branches of science and large quantities of what they've discovered.

How is this true at all? I think you've misconstrued what I'm trying to prove. I'm not trying to prove the factuality of the Bible, rather the existence of a God. In other words I have to put the cart before the horse.

Unless, you trying to say that anyone is claiming proof on the nonexistence of God, in which case I would agree with you. It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, that is why the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Saying there is a god is making a claim, saying that you don't believe that is a denial of the claim, it isn't a claim in and of itself.

Good point. But at the same time the onus falls equally upon you, not to disprove the existence of God, but to prove your theory of creation.

So, you only think that something can have meaning if you are going to be rewarded for it? You feel that a good act doesn't have meaning without acknowledgement? That seems to be a very selfish attitude.

No. I'm just trying to say that somewhere down the line everything you did and everyone you know will cease to be, and it will be like you were never there at all. Our lives pass in the blink of an eye when compared to infinitey of the universe. You'll be here for a few more decades. The universe will be here for the next hundred million trillion years. Even the deeds of Caeser and Alexander the Great will eventually pass from memory, and eveything they did or failed to do will have meant nothing.

But our souls are forever and God is forever. That's why our lives have meaning now, because our soul will live on and our good deeds and faith on Earth will have infinite meaning as we dwell eternely in the presence of God.

I think that doing something good is intrinsically meaningful. I don't need to be rewarded to do good things. I do what I feel is right without the promise or expectation of reward

Jesus taught us to think the same way about good deeds. Not to glory in them or pride yourself in your deeds. It's about being humble before others, but most of being humble before God.

Could you say the same thing? If the Big Bang and evolutionary theories are proven to be absolutely true, will you be able to admit to having been wrong?

No, since I believe these theories to be the result of God's creation. Like you said you can't disprove a negative. But let's say, hypothetically, there was some way to prove that God didn't exist, and it was proven, then of course I would admit I was wrong. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. I require proof just like you.

When will you realize that all religions are equally valid, and the only reason that you think that your religion is any more validity is because of your belief in it?

This is a new thread in and of itself. Set it up if you wish.

Please don't lump somebody else's argument in with what I've said. If you want to address what they said, then address it seperately. I agree, that it is a useless "what if" argument.

My fault. Didn't mean to do that.

Whew! All this talk about theoritical physics and quantam mechanics has me beat. I like where this debate is headed...

 

[Snoozin]

Prove love exists.

*I* love, therefore I am. :mrgreen:

 

[leejosepho]

I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge that your post intended nothing, implied nothing and had not been thought out.

While I defend your right to hear and/or to believe as you will, I have acknowledged no such thing!

Perhaps one day you will write something that is not so riddled with escape routes that it actually means something.

There was no "escape route" in that post, and it is actually you who is trying to escape something here ... something like the fact that you seem to have great difficulty hearing something I had said that was actually agenda-free! For in fact, my post was largely a bit of mere "thinking out loud", so to speak, while pondering the kind of thing you and others say about morality not needing any particular or specific supernatural source or connection to exist ... or something along that kind of line.

Why are you so obsessed with trashing me?

 

[MrFungus420]

Prove love exists.

Prove any emotions exists. It's impossible. And irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[steen]

It would be wrong of me to speak for Christians, but at least in my own case, "the fear of judgement day" and a desire to hear "Well done!" are definitely parallel factors here ...

And I am a Christian, and I find it absolutely appaling to have one's actions and Faith determined by whatever reward/consequense can be extracted from that Faith.

 

[steen]

God in no way condones any killings unless its self defense. You are misconstruing Gods teachings. In no way did he condone torturing or mass killings. In no way does he condone any violence that is carried out onhis children. He is as peaceful as ghandi and yet as fair as the law. If that made sense.

You are actually making a false claim here. The OT is full of commandments by God to go and slay a king and all of his followers down to women and children, and even fetuses.