Discussions
"Proof" that there is a God?
Posted by ThirstyJon • 4/24/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: agnosticism, atheism, christianity, existence of god, God, Islam, judaism, philosophy, religion, theology
So... I have often heard it said that there is no "proof" that there is a God.
What would equal "proof" that there is a God? On the other hand, what would equal "proof" that there is not?
User Comments
-
No proof here. Just two facts, for example. No one would deny that there is something called energy in this universe...to keep things running, right?? No one also would deny that there is an order and a profound logical thinking in all living systems, that, to this date, no one knows exactly what's happening. Well, for me, that intelligent energy that rules the systems every time is what people calls God. On the other hand, the virtues that religions atribute to that power, or intelligent energy, may belong to cultural beliefs and fiction rather than to reality.-
No, intelligent energy is my fuzzy-logic washing machine.
-
-
God - being supernatural in most traditional religions - would defy direct measurement by anything we as mortal and physical entities could observe. However, a lot of things traditionally attributed to "God's Work" can be shown to work without direct involvement by God. This doesn't disprove God in physics, for example, but God is rendered irrelevant to the process. It's sort of like adding the same number to both sides of an equation.
However, the argument would be that one does not need to prove God's existence. That is what faith is for. Either you believe or you don't and "proof" would always be suspect one way or another. -
As said many intelligent functions are going on our body as well as universe by the energy having intelligence.
A book on human physiology tells that God is also within us.(also has pictures.)
www.vedicbooks.net/human-physiology-expression-veda-vedic-literature-p-857.... -
The proof that there is no God is just there. Look around you. Do you see any proof? No. You ONLY have belief. That's why it's called a religion. If there was even the slightest bit of proof, it would be upgraded to a theory. =p
There is no proof, no empirical proof, no physical proof, no quantifiable or qualifiable proof. None. Zip. Nada.
The 'proof' that there is no God is the utter and supreme lack of anything that truly can be called proof.
It's just very easy - You say god made this world? I say the fluffy giant pink unicorn from my ass did. If you want to prove that god made this world you first have to DISPROVE that the fluffy giant pink unicorn from my ass did, and I challenge ANYONE to do that. You can't, except for the fact that you don't believe in it. The only leeway you choose to give to 'God' is personal biasness, which is what religion IS.
So no. Everyone who posted 'proof' of God here so far is absolute rubbish. There is no proof of there being a God, but to be fair, there's an EXACT equal amount of proof of there being NO God. But a lack of proof is always, ALWAYS the sign of one thing.
You go work it out.-
That's quite a rant DragonPwner. You sound confident.
What would you accept as "proof?"
-
-
What you prayed, He listened. That's the proof that He exist.-
FYI, the top bishop in the U.S. said after 9/11: "Nothing fails us quite as often or as dramatically as prayer."
Jeanne Dixon used to predict an assassination every year - finally when JFK was shot, they called her a "prophet". (!)
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, etc..
In other words, pray all the time, and the rare occasion you get "answered" doesn't prove much, if you don't get answered most of the time.
Some say only selfless prayer works - most pray for their families, money, jobs, better health: ALL materialist things, all selfish things. How many pray to 'become more spiritual' or 'that others find peace of mind'.
Does that occur to most people? I quit going to church b/c every single person asked for some personal prayer help - NOT A SINGLE ONE asked for help for someone else or someone outside their family.
Prayer helps the "pray-er".. it's a psychological boost.. Meditation works better I think, for healing anyway, also for LISTENING to "God" or whatever the Supreme Being is. Its tough to achieve, but a level above prayer. You still your mind and your ego, the subconscious, then you can find peace of mind. Then who knows what may flow in?
Not that she's very respectful, but Kathy Griffin has a humorous quote (to me anyway), "Lets hope that the creator of the entire cosmos has something more important to do than help you with your trivial wants." (ie, winning cheesy awards.. she was referring to, "I'd like to thank God for this...")
-
-
The only reason you started this thread is to provoke an argument and attention. I have no factual proof though I am 100% certain that this is your intent.-
Hello TonyB,
Actually, that isn't true. I started this thread because I am genuinely curious to see what people write. I have seen many discussions on the internet trying to "prove" or "disprove" God, but I haven't participated in one (or even seen one) about what would constitute "proof."
:-)
-
-
Fair enough
-
what makes u think such stuffs..dude live!! -
We can't really disprove the existence of god in the same that we can't disprove the existence of pixies, elves, hobbits, goblins, leprechauns etc etc...but that doesn't mean everything we can't disprove actually exists. The onus is on the people who assert that something exists to provide proof, not everyone else to prove it doesn't.
Bertrand Russell:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."-
Actually sorry Mr. Russell but being a Christian is now a mark of eccentricity.
And I like eccentrics
-
-
someone said "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".. I am inclined to think otherwise-
in this situation at least...
-
-
Can hardly believe we are still having this discussion. Ancient pagan Greek philosphers demonstrated the existence of a First Being, or what religious traditions call "God". Little can be said of a First Being.
As pure Act, the First being as First being can be only a spiritual being, not a material being (a being composed of matter and form), for matter is eminently the seat of potency (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Lambda book, chap. 7.)-
Ancient pagan Greek philosophers also believed women had toxic blood and were deformed men, that there were only 4 elements and that they each were constantly trying to rejoin their source, and that we only had 5 senses when we have at least 11...
Ancient pagan Greek philosophers need to catch up...
-
-
Proof denies faith. The whole point of religion is faith not proof. If you have to have stuff proven try science not religion.-
Metaphysics is the science of sciences; it is what seeks the first principles.
Disclaimer: if you tell a religious person that their God is neither concrete nor abstract, you might get scolded... lol
-
-
Ancient pagan Greek philosophers studied science with the tools of their time. Aristotle was the first to show man and women had specifically the same soul (contrary to what Plato liked to believe). Both Aristotle and Plato were quite interested in the fifth elelment (Ether). 11 senses? wow
To get back to the subject, being as being, the object of the study of metaphysics is neither concrete nor abstract, in other words it is neither to the left nor to the right, neither red nor blue, neither historical nor contemparary: it is.
Amazing that Aristotle was more than 25 centuries ahead of his time.-
"Ancient pagan Greek philosophers studied science with the tools of their time"
Which is why they were wrong about quite a lot of things and should be taken with a handful of salt.
"To get back to the subject, being as being, the object of the study of metaphysics is neither concrete nor abstract, in other words it is neither to the left nor to the right, neither red nor blue, neither historical nor contemparary: it is."
I'm sorry...I'm not fluent in bollocks...
"Amazing that Aristotle was more than 25 centuries ahead of his time."
ha! -
"Which is why they were wrong about quite a lot of things..."
In the realm of physics or biology, they certainly made mistakes, as they did not dispose of the tools available to modern day scientists. In fact, even in "speculative knowledge", the Philosopher (Aristotle's nickname... lol) says we are more often than not mired in error...
"I'm sorry...I'm not fluent in bollocks..."
That is easier to say than admitting you haven't read and critically analyzed Aristotle's 17 books on first philosophy... -
I haven't read and critically analysed Aristotle's 17 books on first philosophy....but I can still tell that this:
"To get back to the subject, being as being, the object of the study of metaphysics is neither concrete nor abstract, in other words it is neither to the left nor to the right, neither red nor blue, neither historical nor contemparary: it is"
means approximately nothing... -
Key word here being approximately. Isn't it comforting for the ego to reduce reality to our knowledge of reality...
-
alrighty
*goes off to dance with fairies*
-
-
Proof that there is a God...
The stripes on a tiger's back
The camouflage of a chameleon
The veins on leaves matching the wings of a housefly
A bomb hitting St. Paul's cathedral during World War II and not destroying it
The miracle of life-
your definition of 'proof' is broken
-
wonderful proof
my logic is better
Proof that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists..
The Skin and Bones merely cover what is inside
What is really inside are our intestines, veins and arteries and other vessels
They are all noodly
FSM made man in his image
FSM exists. QED
Invisible Pink Unicorn:
Life is the greatest miracle.
Women produce new life(give birth)
Women are all young girls at some point.
young girls like pink.
Invisible pink unicorn exists. QED. -
-
-
The theologians and philosophers have been contorting and distorting language for over 3000 years trying to prove God's existence and the existence of first causes. It should be pretty obvious by now that it's all a linguistic game proving absolutely nothing but one's desire to believe in something that simply ain't true.-
Agree wholeheartedly
-
That is that sorted then.
Humanity has wondered about it's place in the grand scheme of things since it was first capable of thought about 250,000 years ago.
According to nothingprofound humanity's endeavours have been a colossal waste of time.
Oh well, not to worry, maybe there is something on TV, so polybore can while away their insignificant flicker of conciousness. -
Might I suggest 'Ashes to Ashes'...it's very good...
-
I sometimes wonder if the pasta is ready, but never about my place in "the grand scheme of things."
(What grand scheme of things?) -
The atoms which constitute your body were forged in the heart of a star. Over time they assembled themselves in such a way to produce life, then conciousness.
The universe goes on doing it's amazing thing and we are part of it. -
'scheme' is a misleading work...implies it all happened on purpose...
-
Somewhere around the 13th century some head honcho decreed the final cause to be metaphorical. Very few have consented to learn ancient Greek to check out what the Philosopher really said. Not on this board anyhow
The modern day Westerner resembles the Greek barbarian of whom the Ancients said he destroys that which he doesn't understand. In effect, here we stand as Barbarians, mistaking truth with certainty (certainty being most often what is scientifically demonstrated), in other words we negate what we do not understand or cannot demonstrate. In this respect, Rene Geunon's Book "Signs of Our Times: A Critical Appraisal of The Reign of Quantity", written in the 1950's, is quasi-prophetic. -
@polybore: No quarrel there. The universe is amazing, and life is beautiful, and I'm thrilled you and I are here.
-
Sorry SiuilARuin. In the context, "grand scheme of things", scheme (in the old fashioned sense of the word) means a "mathematical or astronomical diagram" or "a representation of the astrological aspects of the planets at a particular time".
So "grand scheme of things" does not imply anything happened on purpose. -
I shee...
-
Are you pished already? Well it is after 4 'suppose. Time for a little drinkie.
-
I just enjoy speaking like Sean Connery on occasion...
-
-
"God is there he can help you out in distress".
Now be in distress ... start calling in the name of GOD ... he / she is not going to help as "God does not help him/her who doesn't believe or worship God regularly".
It's very difficult for me to prove that god is there. -
We'll find out one way or another when we kick the bucket!-
That's right!
-
or we won't...
-
HOW do you know this? If reincarnation exists, and we've forgotten the prior lifetime (they say either by design or due to the trauma of death and rebirth), then we may have no recollection of anything in between, just being alive this particular lifetime.
I've had memories of my prior lifetime, in dreams as a chid - then had them validated by four other people when I was an adult. They also say we are reincarnated with the same group of people each time - hence the "deja vu" feeling when you meet one of them again in the new lifetime..
Interesting stuff. I like to remain open to all possibilities. One thing seems certain: like Harry Houdini said "I'll let you know if the afterlife is real", and we haven't heard from him, so far there's been no scientific contact with proof from the other side, just psychics, channellers, etc.. others who may have a financial motive in promoting their sciences.. yes, they're called "psychic sciences", science of the soul, psyche being Greek for soul (right? now the ancient Greek experts will now say its just 'mental substance' or something slightly different, but you get the point)
I think a lot of the unseen exists - you can feel angels/ghosts, whatever - something is out there. 72% of all Americans think they've contacted dead loved ones... that's a high number!
-
-
You'd think that if there WAS a god, it would have included "thou shalt wash thy hands regularly" as one of the 10 Commandments. How much uncessary death & illness would have been avoided with that one, instead of the 1st four which basically sum up what an insecure & ineffective god it is. -
The Existence God Can Be Proven Many Ways.
How much control do humans have over their lives is one Example from many that Proves the Existence of a Divine Creator. Humans have the will to choose; act and control their emotions, but no human being has full control over their lives, meaning whatever one chooses to act upon the outcome will be so as one chooses.
If humans have full control over their lives, the planet earth would be a small place even to five individuals, due to the greedy mentality of humankind.
But there is a Divine law within the universe that overrules human’s will, and this divine law of the universe is designed by a Divine Creator (God) who created all the elements within the universe and gave each & every creation the right amount of balance they need in order to function to their purpose.
But when it comes to understanding this Divine Creator (God) many humans are Spirituality blinded to even start with a rational approach.
Those who are waiting to see God in order to believe in God, they are not being rational, because the Invisible Makes the Visible a Possibility.
The element that keeps the living alive is INVISIBLE. The INVISIBLE enables the eyes to see what the eyes see, because without the INVISIBLE space between the eyes & what the eyes see, the eyes would not able to see what the eyes see.
These same metaphors apply the same to all the elements within the universe.
An INVISIBLE element (gravity) is what keeps the earth in balance. An INVISIBLE element (magnetic field) is what prevents lives of the earth from being incinerated by the intense heat of sun.
We can go on & on with this. Just because you don’t see God, it is not rational not to believe in God while there are plenty of existences that reveal the existence of a Creator (God).
However, there are dark elements within our world that blind the human Spirit from functioning to its true purpose, and for that reason when it comes to realization of God, it is easier for a Blinded Spirit to try to disprove or dismiss rather than rationalize.
The Existence of God Cannot be Disproved or Dismissed on a Rational Ground. Only the Spirit can realize the Existence of God, because human eyes are Incompetent to Determine What or Who Doesn’t Exist.
Here is a Link on More Elaboration on Who God Is & What God Is:
thefiveelementsalltruthsrevealed.blogspot.com/ -
can you proof what is the colour of wind or how its exist ?its one of proofed that there is god. -
Isn't it Occam's or someone's law that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". I like to tell skeptics that "the Creation proves the Creator".
Someone said this is "artificialism" or something - that for everything made, you assume a maker, faulty logic. I'm not sure, without a Supreme Being, what animated the matter we're made of, the $1.95 worth of raw elements? Spiritus animus, right?
Some consciousness animated matter, this consciousness is our self-awareness of ourselves as beings, the cause of "I am that I am" - God is self-consciousness?
There are really two basic philosophies of God: (1) we are creations of the Supreme, hence separate, and we feel this separateness. Religion means "return to God" (2) we are emanations from God, or all a part of God, like billions of fingers on a giant hand of the living God.
Some say everything in the universe has the "thread of God" running through it - atomic energy? that which holds all atoms in the universe in balance. As above, so below: atoms look like solar systems; galaxies as well, rotate around a galactic core, and so on, ad infinitum..
Is this an accident, that over time life just evolved from dead matter, as my cousin claims? Called Scientific Materialism - this strains credulity as well, doesn't it?
If "God" is truly everywhere, then we are all a part of "God", or the Supreme. Doesn't matter what you call "it", "a rose by any other name is still a rose". I like to say you can't change the nature of a thing by changing the name.
I get in this argument all the time in the south: if you don't call the Supreme by the name they want, they say you're "worshipping idols" or some nonsense.. you have to call God by "their chosen name" or you're going to hell!!
Funny, I thought I was already in Hell - baked by a big ball of fire all day, then eaten by insects if I go outside, and I die quickly without water! This has to be hell, someone convince me otherwise! And our proper judgment? REINCARNATION, you can't escape hell even through suicide, you come right back again! YIKES!!!!!!!!
(My ex thinks this 'hell' of reality is so bad that we had to make up God(s) to keep from going insane daily)
Let me off this ride, hurtling through space at 22,000 miles an hour! I need Paradise, so I can relax with God for a few lifetimes..
Keep Smiling, or you might break! -- the Jman
bibledecoded.blogspot.com -
ps - Joseph Campbell said "if you had proof of God, why would you need faith?". Good point. Science has proof, that's what science is- someone anywhere else can repeat the process and obtain the same results. No so with God(s), so far anyway - hence faith.
HOwever, I would urge seeking, and keeping an open mind. Faith is the beginning, but gnossis is direct knowledge and more meaningful.
Has anyone else had a white light experience? Anyone read Edmund Bucke's "Cosmic Consciousness", from 1900, about this from a psychiatric viewpoint? He and his friend Walt WHitman both had the white light, I had it once meditating, about age 22, after college. I would call this gnossis, direct experience of something religious - even if its just "pure energy", it felt spiritual, beyond the physical, that's all that mattered.. it has a profound effect on all who have it. -
What's the OPERATIONAL definition of God ? -
we are talking of proof by man made science but our science is incomplete.So by no man made device or instrument or logic we can get proof.We have material world intellect. You can contact that energy (God) only by spiritual progress and those who have done good spiritual progress they pass through many experiences which can not be described in words . It requires the next level intellect which is possible only by spiritual progress.
When I say God exists in form of energy , I can also say that the Sun is God (actually it is one of those energies)and we can see it and we can not exists without it. -
"God is formless, because if He possesses a form He could never be Omnipresent, nor, therefore Omniscient; since a finite substance can possess only finite attributes, actions and nature. Besides, He could never be free from hunger and thirst, heat and cold, disease, imperfections and injuries. This proves, therefore, that God is formless. If He were to possess a body, another person would be required to make the different organs of His body, such as eyes, ears and the like, for He, who is the product of the combination of the different parts, must have an intelligent formless maker. Here if it be argued that God Himself made His own body simply by willing it, this too goes to prove that He was formless before He made His body. It is clear, therefore, that God is never embodied. Being without a body He is able to make the visible universe out of invisible (subtle) causes... Nor can the incarnation of God be demonstrated by reason, just as the saying of a man, that space entered a womb or was put in a closed hand, can never be true, for space being Infinite and Omnipresent can neither go in, nor come out; similarly, God, being Infinite and All-pervading, it can never be predicated of him that He can go in or come out. Coming and going can be possible only if it be believed that there are places where He is not. Then was not God already present in the womb and was not He already present outside that He is said to have gone into and come out of it? Who but men devoid of intelligence, can believe in and say such things about God? Therefore, it should be understood that Christ and other were also not incarnations of the Deity — being subject to fear and grief, births and deaths, they were all men." (Ref: Satyarth Prakash - The Light of Truth)
-Swami Dayanand Saraswati
(Founder of Arya samaj) -
You can prove that someone has killed but you cannot prove that he has never killed. Same thing for God "Proof".
This is Logic 101.-
Aristotle is also the father of logic. Metaphysics is beyond logic (being is not an abstraction from concrete realities - being is neither concrete nor abstract). The neuron can climb up to a "First being" through analogies and (non Baconian) inductions (inductions are the real quality of an intelligence).
-
-
What about ghosts? I have seen two in my life, and I know plenty of people who have also, and many of video proof, if there are spirits, then obviously we can continue after our bodies die! At least that has some realization to spiritual life, so that's more of a possibility of God. Also once My sister and I were in two different rooms, that the both windows of the rooms faced our backyard, we saw the ghosts at the same time, my sister is three years older than me, when i was screaming about seeing the ghost and talk to her about it till a couple years ago, she told how she remembers seeing thee ghost and me screaming in the other yelling about the see thru man in the backyard-
Even Science admits there may be at least 12 dimensions for our Universe 8 being so tiny we can't see them ... so there are many things we don't know yet but even if Ghosts exist that doesn't prove that God in Biblical sense exist, it may be just ... extra-terrestrials breeding us as cattles feeding them with our psy energy as I don't expect they eat physical foods if they are not in our realm
-
there are ghost. there is also God. ghost are just one of the form of demon. ever see ppl cast out demons from somebody? you should have a look of how the demons respond.
-
-
Because we are here in this World. If there's no God, then who created us? -
proof proof proof. what you also want to proof using the stupid philosophy ar science. don't you ever experience God is with you? After you prayed and He answer your prayer. Why do you still need so many proof? it is just that easy.
-
stupid thinking! tsk!
-
stupid thinking? just because God is never with you? if God is with you everyday, then you will know that there is God. what a pity. I bet you have never "see" God.
-
"stupid philosophy ar science"
I suppose you've never gone to a doctor or been in a plane or used a computer...oh wait...
stupid science and its stupidness... -
The stupid science that he uses every single day
-
-
I just wrote this article as an answer to this thread
A new approach to God Existence Debate: the Pi Digits
www.elitethinker.com/2009/05/new-approach-to-god-existence-debate.html -
-
Proof is creation itself. See Romans chapter 1. -
Well I guess all of us will find out soon enough. Now won't we? Just the possibility is proof enough for me. -
Look for it in the fortune cookies -
I originally posted this question for discussion because I am very curious.
I have heard atheists and agnostics say "there is no proof that there is a god" and I have heard theists say "you don't need proof, it is a matter of faith."
There's a lot of discussion about whether or not there is "proof" but I see less about how exactly do you define "proof?"
I am not trying to be brainy here, I am completely serious.
I don't accept the definition of "faith" as "believing something without reason or evidence." "Faith" means to "chose to believe." You can put faith in a chair, that it will hold you, and then sit in it. You can put faith in a bank and then deposit your money.
You may be choosing where to put your faith wisely, or you may be choosing unwisely.
I see the quest for "proof" - or maybe more accurately "evidence" - as starting with a question: What proof or evidence do I require before I am ready to chose to believe that God is there, or that He is not there? We can argue until the cows come home about whether proof exists, but we'll never get anywhere if we don't know what proof would satisfy us.
So that is the question, then. What would you accept as "proof" or "evidence" of God's existence? What do you need?-
So, here I am answering my own question for the world to see.
When I was in high school some of my friends strongly challenged my worldview and challenged me with questions like "How do you know your religion is right? Everyone thinks the beliefs that they grew up with are true!"
My own heart had a deep hunger for truth and to believe things really and not just because a family member did.
I needed intellectual proof. I found this in two primary categories. 1) Reason 2) History
Francis Schaeffer's book He is There and He is not Silent provided me with some serious reasoning. I also spent extended time discussing with my skeptical friends and other people in my life.
I read several books and did a lot of thinking about the Christian Claim of a Real Time-Space event called the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I read a debate between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew about the Historical and Logical Evidence surrounding the Resurrection Event. I also read The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell and read some of Evidence that Demands a Verdict by the same author. It didn't take long to see that it was very reasonable to believe in the Resurrection of Christ! And if that happened... Well.
But it wasn't enough. My mind was somewhat satisfied that it was more reasonable to believe in God (and the entire Christian Faith) than not to, but I needed something more.
That something more came in the from of an Encounter with God. I used to demand that He show up and physically show Himself to me. I wanted to see God!
Well, it never happened. I never did see Him. But something else happened. I encountered Him.
Mormons have told me they had a "burning in their bosom." A close relative told me how they experienced god through buddhism. I have heard many stories. An atheist "evangelist" at a local university challenged me to read Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. I got the book, but soon realized that my encounter was way beyond an "experience." It was more like an internal "knowing" or "revelation." The truth is, I have been unable to doubt God's existence or the Story of Christ since Encountering the Living and True God!
Yes, I said unable.
Now, I know that my encounter doesn't offer much to someone else, and I don't expect it to. I suppose it has some value as a testimony that such things might be possible. It could offer hope to a hungry seeker. It is a form of evidence (yes, testimony is a form of evidence).
This is an interesting thing about God. Everyone get's to see His Creation. Some decide that this is "evidence" of God, others say it is not. The Holy Spirit is in the earth as testimonial evidence to the human heart of God. Some speak of powerful encounters, others remain skeptics.
In the end, everyone gets to look at all the evidence (or refuse to look) and decide whether or not to believe. This is faith. Looking at the evidence and deciding what to believe. In a very real sense being an "atheist" is "faith." An atheist is having faith in "there is no god" based on whatever "evidence" he or she examined.
We have a choice. All this leads back to the question: What evidence do you require? All of us will die one day and face the answer about any afterlife. It is certainly worth considering what will be there.
-
-
Did it ever occur to you that we're not supposed to have "evidence", per se - because that's the challenge of faith? If God was an absolute certainty, then faith is easy - mankind is notably bad on having faith. The apostles once said to Jesus, "Lord, increase our faith" - He replied that if they had faith the size of a mustard seed, they could command a mulberry tree to plant itself in the sea and it would obey.
I don't see too many mulberry trees off the Sussex coast these days.
If you had evidence, faith would neither be a challenge nor a journey, it would not be something you would have to constantly re-examine, it would not be a device that could cause the stirrings of conscience to percolate within you. It would become a stale set of precepts, which are so shaky that one might, oh, say, feel the need to broadcast it on some random message board on the internet to try and get confirmation and affirmation.-
greencurmudgeon,
Yes, I considered the possibility that "we're not supposed to have evidence." I was never satisfied with that point of view.
I once saw Richard Dawkins discussing (arguing) with Bill O'Reilly on my television. Bill O'Reilly was saying, basically, "my beliefs are right for me" and Dawkins was saying, basically, "but isn't there objective truth out there?" Ironically, I relate more to Richard Dawkins than to Bill O'Reilly on this one. My heart is hungry for truth. I am not interested only in my own subjective point of view.
On my journey, my heart demanded to know whether or not God was real. I got my answer. Perhaps you are satisfied with something else.
The statement "if you have evidence, faith would be neither a challenge nor a journey" makes no sense to me. I suspect that it makes no sense to me because it doesn't make sense at all.
I don't doubt God's Existence. Sometimes I doubt things about God. Sometimes I doubt how He has led me in my life, or if perhaps I have followed my own way and blamed Him. I experience all kinds of unknowns to make the journey difficult and sometimes exciting; but I am convinced in my mind, heart, and spirit that He is There. I believe without hesitation the story about God-In-The-Flesh - Jesus Christ, His Virgin Birth, His Crucifixion, His Resurrection, His Ascension, His church and His Inevitable Return.
I am looking for neither confirmation nor affirmation. I am genuinely curious to see how people are responding, or if people even are able to understand my question. I neither expect nor need anyone to agree with me. -
@ThirstyJon
It only doesn't make sense because you don't want it to make sense. You are constructing an illusion of objective evidence of God to shield yourself from the difficulties associated with faith: namely, unless you're playing golf with God on Thursdays, there is no direct evidence.
You want to believe, you need to believe, and in fact, you so desperately have this desire that you are on a mission to quash any doubt whatosever, not just in yourself, but you've taken it upon yourself to do so in others. It won't work. You can create an edifice of fantasy for yourself whereby evidence is indeed available, but this does not constitute an objective reality.
I'll spell it out for you one more time - by refusing to embrace doubt, you are losing the grandeur of faith. Faith's power lies in its ability to overcome doubt; the ability to believe in something, even when objective reality doesn't support it is a triumph of the spirit over the body. By eliminating doubt, by insisting that objective reality complies with your religious beliefs, you're robbing faith of its majesty. Which, quite frankly, is sad. -
greencurmudgeon,
You seem to be focused on what you imagine my motives to be. If you continue to do that you will probably remain sad.
I can't think of any reason to believe your assertion that "doubt" is somehow the zest or "majesty" of faith. Consider James 1:5-7
ThirstyJon
-
-
I shot up drugs for 14 years. Proof of God - in an instant while I lay dying, He delivered me from them. Never have touched them since. It's been quite some time. My life has totally turned around.-
Congratulations! And stay healthy!
-
sarah123,
Excellent! I am very happy for you! I can imagine others rejecting your testimony, but I do not. I still believe that testimony is a form of evidence.
God Bless You in your journey.
ThirstyJon
-
-
These many galaxies are proof that a mechanism is at work. A tiny speck of MEAT on this tiny planet, is becoming able to KNOW the mechanism that created a universe, galaxies, suns, planets, Time and Life. Meanwhile, the unknown is called, ''god''. Our lies can only exist in the ABSENSE of knowing the Truth.
6 billion Humans = 6 billion ''gods''. No two gods alike.
. www.themiracleoflife.org/Miracle/OurSky.html .
.-
wrong spot -
this was a response to jflower36 but she moved.
-
-
I would accept as proof of the existence of god(s), prayer resulting in the spontaneous regrowth of an amputated human limb.
Not a particularly difficult task for an omnipotent being...but so far, never reported to have happened.-
SweetViolet,
That would certainly be amazing. I'd like to be there when it happens. I wouldn't put it past God to do it.
So is that the only evidence you would accept? Is that what your heart really wants?
ThirstyJon -
My heart doesn't want anything but a steady electrical rhythm and a sufficient quantity of blood to pump, both of which it has, thank you very much.
If your...or any...god is real, I will believe it just as soon as an amputee regrows a limb in response to prayer. Until that time, I am satisfied that there is no proof of the existence of god(s) and without that proof, there is no reason to believe.
BTW, what proof would it take for you to believe that the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and/or leprechauns exist? Do you think an adult with a normal mental capacity believes in any or all of them...that they should take my...or YOUR...word that they are real and have faith that they exist and can perform the miracles attributed to them? Or do you think that is just ridiculous? Hmmm? -
SweetViolet,
You wrote: "BTW, what proof would it take for you to believe that the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and/or leprechauns exist? Do you think an adult with a normal mental capacity believes in any or all of them...that they should take my...or YOUR...word that they are real and have faith that they exist and can perform the miracles attributed to them? Or do you think that is just ridiculous? Hmmm?"
That is a good question, actually. That gets to the point of the question that I originally posted.
So I'll pick one of your examples, and start sharing my thoughts.
Leprechauns... What would it take to persuade me that they really exist?
I probably wouldn't spend any time on the question unless two things were true. 1) Their existence or non-existence had some important bearing on my life. (Which as far as I know, it does not). 2) I met or read about some folks who seemed reasonable and intelligent and who claimed to offer some good reasons to believe that they really existed. (I haven't met such people)
So... If someone showed me why the question about Leprechauns mattered and persuaded me to examine their reasons and evidence, I would give it genuine consideration.
But seeing as I haven't been offered any good reason to even investigate the question for now I am willing to accept that leprechauns are mythical creatures.
If someone who actually believed in leprechauns was trying to persuade me, what would it take for them to succeed?
Hmmm. Here are some ideas for a start. Is there any archeological evidence of leprechauns? Are there any stories about leprechauns written in a historical narrative style (in other words, the author is clearly trying to share historical events, as opposed to tell a myth)? How do the "non-leprechaun" elements of the story compare to other historical narratives? Are there any eye witness testimonies of leprechauns that have stood the test of time? Does anybody have a leprechaun that they can show me? Do we have any skeletons or preserved bodies of leprechauns?
Of course, the best one would be if I personally met and related to a leprechaun. That would have a pretty persuasive effect. Especially if I was not drunk or ill or on any drugs at the time. (Sobriety is my usual state of mind. :-) )
Even if the evidence I was shown did not persuade me, I would not then say "there is no evidence." I would simply say "I haven't seen any evidence that persuaded me." If the evidence didn't seem to have any credibility at all my testimony would be "this doesn't even appear to be worth investigating."
:-) -
Well, Jon, now you understand why I don't believe god(s) exist. Nothing in the legends are persuasive and ancient myths...particularly a set of contradictory stories invented by multiple illiterate and uneducated people to explain natural phenomenon in the absence of true knowledge...do not apply to my life in the modern world.
Omnipotence is claimed a feature of the Christian god...the ability to do anything. Show me the human amputee who spontaneously regrows a limb as a result of prayer to your god and I will be persuaded. Everything else can be explained by science, natural phenomenon, luck, and/or coincidence. -
If an amputee were to grow a leg I doubt you would attribute it to God.
-
@jflower36
You know me so well that you can predict how I will respond to such an event? Are you omniscient? That is a god's power, you know...are you a god? Or a psychic? Or just able to read the mind of a complete stranger thousands of miles away?
Or maybe...just maybe...you have simply chosen to disbelieve. Remember, our choice to believe or disbelieve has no bearing on the fact of a matter...it doesn't make it so.
Only I know what is in my heart. At best, you can only guess. -
SweetViolet, No to all of your questions, and I didn't say it to offend. It was my best guess based on your statements. But I truly hope that I'm wrong. Maybe you will prove me wrong
-
Sweetviolet, you wrote: "Show me the human amputee who spontaneously regrows a limb as a result of prayer to your god and I will be persuaded."
In case their is any doubt, I do not have the power to regrow limbs on amputees. There is no doubt in my mind that God can do it.
I personally don't demand that anyone believe like I do. In fact, I don't need to persuade anyone. I can see that folks can decide what to believe or not believe, and there is nothing I can do about it. (And I'm ok with that.) And, as I said, I have no magical powers on my own for regrowing limbs.
God, however, I suspect is a different story. I suspect that He allows us to choose what evidence to accept or reject. It's almost like he respects our right to choose for ourselves. In the end, though, I suspect that He also allows us to live with the consequences of our choices. Both now and forever.
So, I can say that each of us gets to choose based on whatever evidence we decide to accept, but God is not bound to my limitations. His opinion about whether or not we have chosen wisely just might count in the end. I suspect that to be so (and I chose to believe it is so. Yes... I am persuaded.)
P.S. I wonder if God feels any compulsion to provide other evidence than what He has already provided us.
P.P.S. Thanks again, by the way, because you have answered my question originally posted. You would accept a clear, supernatural sign, specifically a limb growing spontaneously on an amputee as a result of prayer. Let me know if you ever see one. I'd also be curious to hear if you ever become open to other forms of evidence.
-
-
The discovery of the Babel Fish.
-
Well radioflyer1980, at least I know that I can now answer all of your questions: "42"
-
-
Many people believe in God. There's proof of that. But whether God Himself exists-there's no proof of that.
-
Sorry to all who believe, but there is no god. Neither is there any evidence of any supernatural realm.-
cue sh*tstorm
-
ArizonaAtheist,
I am glad to have finally met the final authority on the matter. You have finalized and completed this whole discussion with one breath.
:-)
ThirstyJon
-
-
Hi Thirsty,
Yes, I think I summed it up rather well. : )
Sarcasm right back at ya ; )-
:-)
-
-
There is no empirical evidence that a god of any kind exists or does not exist. And as we all know this I'm pondering why it is that folks keep posting new threads like this one and resurrecting old ones.
Clearly we have all seen that such posts tend to lead to controversy and unpleasant exchanges, and NOT one has lead to a single religious conversion, so what useful purpose they serve is entirely beyond my comprehension.
On one hand, the evidence supporting the theory of creationism leading to the belief the human race are all decedents of Adam and Eve found in the biblical myth in the old testament is entirely lacking. On the other hand, there is evidence that supports Darwin's Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection.
Here are links to videos that I consider to be worthwhile watching:
Evolution - from ape man to neanderthal - BBC science
July 18, 2008 - This amazing video clip shows the evolution of our species from ape man to neanderthal. Animation and CGI enable animators to reconstruct evolution. Free video clip from the BBC. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndwzAw8fchU
Ape to Man Part 1 of 7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7kDUoh56VY
Ape to Man Part 2 of 7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hylde45PZBQ&feature=related
Ape to Man Part 3 of 7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzEnoHhpEAQ&feature=related
Ape to Man Part 4 of 7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDSySHeZcVc&feature=related
Ape to Man Part 5 of 7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q6YTQ8xYuk&feature=related
Ape to Man Part 6 of 7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw0ErkiA6KE&feature=related
Ape to Man Part 7 of 7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-ArzTKhlno&feature=related
Thanks for providing the opportunity to share by posting some links to evidence in this thread. I appreciate it.-
I wrote a brilliant reply to this comment yesterday but the internet lost all my work (you'd think I'd remember to do it in a text editor first!).
Maybe I'll try again eventually.
:-)
-
-
There is a difference between saying that something does not exist and saying that one BELIEVES something does not exist. By the same token, there is also difference between saying that something does exist and saying one BELIEVES that something exists. That difference is what is known as demonstrable fact.
No one can demonstrate the existence of god(s), fairies, or elves just as no one can demonstrate that they do not exist. All we have is belief and lack of belief. And while they may be seen as the opposite sides of the same coin, one carries more validity than the other. To believe in the literal existence of something for which there is no empirical or logical proof is irrational; to refuse to believe in the literal existence of something for which there is no empirical or logical proof is rational.
I do not believe in the existence of god(s). This is not the same as saying that god(s) do not exist...it is saying that I don't believe it. And I don't believe it because there is no empirical or logical proof to support that notion that they do exist. But saying I don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just as saying you believe in it means it does. One's belief or disbelief absolutely unrelated to whether or not something exists: simply believing (or disbelieving) does not make it so.
As said before, when a human amputee regrows a limb as a result of prayer to one or more gods, I will revise my disbelief. Until that time, I have seen absolutely nothing that supports the existence of god(s), and therefore have no reason whatsoever to believe.-
SweetViolet you wrote: "I do not believe in the existence of god(s). This is not the same as saying that god(s) do not exist...it is saying that I don't believe it. And I don't believe it because there is no empirical or logical proof to support that notion that they do exist. But saying I don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just as saying you believe in it means it does. One's belief or disbelief absolutely unrelated to whether or not something exists: simply believing (or disbelieving) does not make it so."
Other than the part about there being no empirical or logical proof, I agree with and appreciate the quoted statement. God is there or He is not there, regardless of my opinion. It is nice to find another believer in the existence of truth/reality.
My opinion or my "faith" or my choice of what to believe or not believe does not make it so.
Amen. -
You seem to miss the point: I do not believe that god(s) exist. That makes me an atheist. I do not claim that gods do not exist, but I believe that they do not. My belief in the non-existence of god(s) does not make it so. I do not belong to a group of like-thinkers, nor do groups of like-thinkers go around the planet trying to browbeat others into accepting their view.
Conversely...and more importantly...believers are not satisfied with merely stating they believe, they must convert that belief into pseudo-fact and claim that their god is real. Then they compound their error by banding together into contradictory little groups and setting out to cajole or terrorize non-believers.
BELIEF is a fact---EXISTENCE is not. The former does not necessarily mean that the latter is true and it is a serious flaw in logic to think it does.
Existence becomes a fact when it is proven. Natural phenomena is just that...natural phenomena. There is no evidence to support that it is caused by a sentient and capricious invisible power. And until such evidence exists, it is dishonest to claim such a power actually exists because, absent empirical evidence, all you have is belief. And belief doesn't make it so.
Show me that amputee... -
SweetViolet,
I know that you are not believing in God. I was not trying to say otherwise. I was merely trying to highlight what we appear to agree upon - that God either exists or does not exist, independent of your or my opinion.
P.S. One of the most aggressive "evangelists" that I know works hard at a local university to trouble, discredit, and "disprove" "religion." He is often referred to as an "atheist evangelist" at that campus. And there are groups of atheists and similar groups like secular humanists who band together to discuss, relate, and advance their thoughts. You might not belong to one, but they are out there. Run a google search.
-
-
Well, everything seems designed to me by someone or something that has pretty grand intelligence. Before even being exposed to religion or knowing what it was, I still thought that as kid. I still do today more than ever.
You don't really have to leave Earth to see it all. There is no planet like this probably out there. It is not luck it got this way. You would have so many planets like this if it was. Space is huge. They will never find another Earth. -
There isn't any proof that dragons don't exist either. Usually the burden of proof is one the person claiming something invisible and undetectable exists.
In this case, if you believe just believe. Don't work for proof, just enjoy your faith.-
Interesting thoughts xmarks.
I have several times observed a remark like "the burden of proof is on the person claiming..."
My interest, however, on this post is to find out what that "proof" would look like to different people.
Interestingly enough, each individual get's to decide what proof or evidence they will or will not accept. I agree with an earlier commenter who implied that what is true is true regardless of what any of us believe individually; however, in matters of choosing whether or not to believe in God, gods, no-god, etc., we each get to set our own criteria. I am curious what that criteria would be for different people, and to mankind in general. -
I've told you what proof I will accept...the amputee. Do you not think if that were to occur, the majority of those who do not believe in the existence of god(s) would change their minds?
-
No, they would attribute it to science. God has already revealed Himself in many ways, yet people have chosen not to believe.
-
@jflower36
Well, if it CAN be attributed to science, it should be!
For a revelation to have any significance, your god needs to reveal him/her/itself in ways that are not explainable by science, natural phenomena, luck and/or coincidence.
That is why I have chosen the regrowth of an amputated limb in response to prayer as the gating item. When your god can do that, atheists all over the globe will sit up and take notice...and, once shown that it is not a "faith healing" trick, scientific breakthrough, or genetic mutation...the converts will be lining up at the church doors. -
I doubt atheists will line up at church over an amputated limb that grows back. There will always be another explanation.
-
SweetViolet,
I know that you told us what you would accept. I am still open to hearing from others as well, thus my repetition of the question.
So... Would there be mass conversions if an amputee was miraculously healed? Maybe. I am pretty sure that many would still not believe. The Scriptures say "Jews ask for a 'signs.'" The Greeks "search for wisdom." The Jews saw their signs when Jesus did all kinds of miracles. They still didn't believe.
-
-
I imagine that people on all sides of the discussion would get a kick out of this: ourdailyfred.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/1273/
Well, I had a good chuckle anyway. -
@ SweetViolet
You're speaking in a somewhat contradictory manor, at least in your wording, as I'm sure that's not your intention. Saying that you would need the proof of the spontaneous regeneration of a limb is one thing and not being able to prove it scientifically goes along with that. So when you stated that a qualification would be that it couldn't be shown to be genetic mutation, scientific breakthrough, or even natural phenomena (though that last one would be a stretch to call a phenomena science, naturalism perhaps but that's another topic) that is consistent with your paradigm. However the other qualifiers being coincidence and luck don't fit in the same framework. Coincidence and luck are entirely subjective and have as much proof as the very thing in which you are arguing against. All in all, it would be better to leave out the last two but that's more than likely what you originally intended. -
I think this is a very good question. Even the best. For this long I also interested to know why people can't know God. One who believes in God or not, both are irrelevant and I'm sorry, both are nonsense, that's my opinion. I don't care about "believing". Believes in something is about psychological things. It has nothing to do with "existence". For example if a kind of fruit called apple is actually exist, what can be happened if one person doesn't believes there is any fruit called apple, the apple will not cease to exist. Now, if one person firmly believes there is one kind of fruit called apple, but "if" actually it doesn't exist. Could it exist because this person believes such? Proofs only help you to belief or not belief. They will give nothing more than this "mind-setting". They only work in mundane law-court. Such a thing can't applied to the existence of God. This is about realization and experience. Then the problem with me is I can't give any proof for "non-existence" of God. Because God is exist, so how can I give any proof to deny it? You surely will understand if you come to Bali and live with me just for one week. One day you may see me personally, if possible, I'll show you everything. Then, there's no more question about "proofs" and "silly beliefs". He..he.. -
You are the proof on your own. Look into yourself -
Why would you want to proof something like that, even if you could? Takes out all the fun. -
I watched the beheading of an Englishman by Islamic Extremists on the Internet and that was proof enough for me that "God" does not exist.
-
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1 -
You ever done acid? That's all the proof you need. -
well helloooo I'm talkin' to ya aint I?-
Lol, I was going to post the same thing about myself, but I didn't want to tell anyone. Darn you! There can only be one (reference to the Highlander).
-
tehehehaha,beat ya
-
-
Ofcourse My Dear BlogCatalogians, There Is Enough Proof Of God's Existence; Everyday Nature's Call Is One Of Them!-
So you are trying to say, every time I have to take a dump, that is a sign of god's existence? How enlightening...
-
I don't get it.....
-
My friend, can you move around Constipated? Well, I cannot, and I wonder, Whom and To What we call God or say, Godliness? I suppose, something that drives you out of your trouble and never puts you into it too often, isn't it? What's wrong then if I dare to find "Him/Her (I do not want another debate!)" in such comfort-giving morning activity!?
Definitely, My previous remark/comment was only sarcastic and nothing else, but after I read these replies, My neurons are forced to think this way, and you know, they are very very staunch once they make an opinion after a lot of pull and push...!
P.S.: No offences intended to any God Lovers & Believers! If it had, My sincere apologies to them!
-
-
proof god is not real .... www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/why-do-you-exist#comment_677390 (read the whole discussion) -
Um no
-
proof that GOD IS REAL...me
-
I'm not gonna argue or debate this with u anymore,bc it's just kinda pointless. We can just agree to disagree
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
