Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lars-E
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Such logic. I am impressed that one person could put so much contradiction into so small a space. Truly an impressive achievement in irrational thinking.

[Boris Godunov]

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Next question, please.

[ckweb]

I have to agree with most of the people on this thread that the attempt to prove or disprove God, especially on the basis of scientific or philosophical models, is inherently flawed. If what we seek to prove or disprove is a transcendent God, he is necessarily outside the ability to prove or disprove absolutely by definition of his/her/its very nature.

A further problem exists in this thread: there is no real shared language among the participants that would allow for a solution. If you wanted a resolution to this issue, you must, in this postmodern world we live in, set some ground rules. What constitutes proof? What elements must someone prove in order to have made the argument? Otherwise, you simply run into the problem that people are at varying levels of skepticism. One person might be convinced that the universe itself provides sufficient proof of God while another requires a personal appearance by the Almighty himself. Obviously and by definition, no one in this thread can bring about the latter (and BTW, this failure does not prove or disprove God). If that is the proof you require than by engaging in discussion in this thread you are wasting your time. For my part and for whatever it is worth, I think probable cause for the existence of God is found in the fact that religious/spiritual phenomenon have been observed and experienced for countless millenia and much of it remains unexplainable by conventional wisdom. But, does this constitute proof for many people in this thread? Of course not. They will simply explain that religious/spiritual phenomenon may have other sources or only reflect an ignorance of underlying realities, or etc. etc.

For Christianity, proving or disproving God rests in an assessment of the person of Jesus Christ and God's acts through history. For Christians, there is a legacy of testimony to specific occurrences of religious/spiritual phenomenon; that is, moments when the transcendent became immanent. For Christians, that testimony is complimented by their own personal experience of God's immanence, which resulted in their conversion and continuing faith. Christians then rely on two things for their faith: (1) the witness of past generations to "alleged" events in history wherein a transcendent God made himself immanent, and (2) a personal experience wherein that immanence was felt or observed in their own lives. Faith in Christ and hence God might come at first from (1) or (2) but generally most require (2) to convince them of the reality of God.

Now, if you truly want an answer to the question of whether God exists or not, the most appropriate approach would be to seek him out; to conduct an experiment as it were. One way you might do this is by contacting or visiting individuals or groups of individuals that claim to know and experience God; ask them how they came into their experience. You might then try to replicate those experiences. For Christianity, it is believed that God works in relationships so it necessarily follows that unless you are willing to go, get to know, and spend time with God, he will not be found of you. How often do we form relationships with people whom we never spend time with? Within Christian understanding, God is not a rapist; he does not force himself upon those people who do not desire to be with him. You have to show some interest too; a relationship always works both ways. Whatever the conventional scientific, philosophical, logical, or instinctual wisdom purports, I think the only way, if there is any way, to prove or disprove God is through seeking and experience. Failing that I have to agree with a previous post that atheism is the way to go, at least from a pragmatic stand point.

[connorkimbro]

Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

Why?

edit: Sorry, let me elaborate a bit. I don't believe in God.

You choose for yourself whether YOU believe in God. I don't care one way or the other which way you decided to believe. Why should I feel the need to convince you that I'm right?

[Robert]

Good post ckweb.

Arguments for my personal believe (which might or will not satisfy others) are (among others):

- The accurate and not date information the bible gives about old time, which is on a much higher level than other scriptures from those days.

- The bible doesn't seek or provide man's pride, which would be and is the case in mythical scriptures written by men.

- The position and 'ressurrection' of israel in this world, fullfilling much biblical prophecies, including Jerusalem being about the biggest problem in this world. This includes the 'ressurection' of most biblical countries in these days, ie. egypt, persia (Iraque), Jordan and the palestines. Even todays world's interest is the middle east.

- God's 'hand' in my own life, answers to prayers. (will never be evidence for others, I can't explain that)

- the biblical 'solution' to the problems in this world, and sin, is totally different than any other religion. It does rule man out. And like the first argument, if it would be made up by men, it would put humanity in the center.

- the bible forbids polygamy. (not all people in the bible listen to it though, but they do it against the will of God)
any religion made up by men will and does accept polygamy. Of course it does, because any man that will start a cult will give himself loads of sex.

- Revelations describes modern times through the eyes of an ancient man. It's truly amazing how someone describes things that ly beyond his imagination which is pretty ordinary this day.

- something can't come out of nothing within our universal natural laws. Nothing can be self-creating. I can't believe that. There must be a cause, a designer.

all these things are backup, I do not believe because of arguments, but when I doubt, I think my arguments over. It's good to have them.

[Dis]

we exist- therefore there is a god

'nuff said

[Lemmy]

i'll keep it short...

- The position and 'ressurrection' of israel in this world, fullfilling much biblical prophecies, including Jerusalem being about the biggest problem in this world. This includes the 'ressurection' of most biblical countries in these days, ie. egypt, persia (Iraque), Jordan and the palestines. Even todays world's interest is the middle east.

Self-fullfilling prophesy

- the bible forbids polygamy. (not all people in the bible listen to it though, but they do it against the will of God)
any religion made up by men will and does accept polygamy. Of course it does, because any man that will start a cult will give himself loads of sex.

So it's made up by a jealous woman...

- something can't come out of nothing within our universal natural laws. Nothing can be self-creating. I can't believe that. There must be a cause, a designer.

Why is it so hard to believe that some things just happen? (untill we know for sure why they happen)
Why is it so bad to say that some things we don't know, and can't know yet, and just accept that, instead of explaining everything with God?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Good post ckweb.

Arguments for my personal believe (which might or will not satisfy others) are (among others):

- The accurate and not date information the bible gives about old time, which is on a much higher level than other scriptures from those days.

Genesis is wrong on most dates even if we use CKwebs ideas except where he and others insist the Bible can't be used for dating despite the clear internal indications that it can.

- The bible doesn't seek or provide man's pride, which would be and is the case in mythical scriptures written by men.

Rubbish. Show where the pride is in Budda's teachings. Of course Genesis is clear about humans being better than anything else and many Christians are pridefull over that.

- The position and 'ressurrection' of israel in this world, fullfilling much biblical prophecies, including Jerusalem being about the biggest problem in this world.

There are few actual successful prophecies. Most are just backwards filtering. Many of the others are exactly the kind of thing could expect an oppressed people to predict. Of course Christians just ignore the failed prophecies.

This includes the 'ressurection' of most biblical countries in these days, ie. egypt, persia (Iraque), Jordan and the palestines. Even todays world's interest is the middle east.

None of which have been resurrected. All are new states quite unlike the Biblical ones. In fact if Israel ever matches the size of Solomon's kingdom that would make Palestine impossible. Persia is not Zorastrian anymore its Islamic.

- God's 'hand' in my own life, answers to prayers. (will never be evidence for others, I can't explain that)

I can explain it. You believe so you believe things are because of prayer instead of your own doing. What you can't do is prove your point.

- the biblical 'solution' to the problems in this world, and sin, is totally different than any other religion. It does rule man out. And like the first argument, if it would be made up by men, it would put humanity in the center.

False. Buddism again makes it clear you do not understand other religions.

- the bible forbids polygamy.

No it doesn't and even if it did that is not even remotely evidence that there is a god much less your specific God.

(not all people in the bible listen to it though, but they do it against the will of God)

Is that why Solomon was the blessed of Jehovah? Because he didn't really have hundreds of wives. So the Bible lied about that huh?

any religion made up by men will and does accept polygamy. Of course it does, because any man that will start a cult will give himself loads of sex.

Rubbish and not evidence of a god even if true.

- Revelations describes modern times through the eyes of an ancient man. It's truly amazing how someone describes things that ly beyond his imagination which is pretty ordinary this day.

The only thing amazing about Revulsions is that anyone takes it seriously after all its failures. It was clearly talking about Rome and that Rome no longer exists.

- something can't come out of nothing within our universal natural laws. Nothing can be self-creating. I can't believe that. There must be a cause, a designer.

It doesn't matter if you can't believe it as long as it has been proved possible. Besides that statement applies equally to any god. If the Universe cannot come from nothing than neither can your god.

all these things are backup, I do not believe because of arguments, but when I doubt, I think my arguments over. It's good to have them.

What would be good would be for you to stop repeating things like the Universe can't come from nothing when that clearly must also apply to any god. Another good thing would be to learn something about evolution instead of constantly telling the same utterly false creationist nonsense about it. Of course then you would have to give up on your ideas about Genesis at the very least.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dissident
we exist- therefore there is a god

'nuff said

Well its enough to make it clear that you don't understand what constitutes proof anyway.

Oddly enough on this thread Ckwebb and I agree. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence god. At least if the god isn't too rigidly defined.

[Jack the Bodiless]

- The accurate and not date information the bible gives about old time, which is on a much higher level than other scriptures from those days.

I still don't see why anyone would list this as evidence of God. The Old Testament was written more than 2000 years ago, why would it NOT mention some of the events of the time in which it was written?

Though it still isn't very accurate. Much of it was written no earlier than 200 BC or thereabouts, and contains many historical inaccuracies when referring to earlier times (e.g. getting the Persian kings mixed up).

- The bible doesn't seek or provide man's pride, which would be and is the case in mythical scriptures written by men.

The priests of the Hebrews had a special problem: how to explain why their tribal God kept allowing them to LOSE battles against just about everyone else in the neighborhood. Hence the "we're not worthy" masochistic sentiment. Though they were still rather boastful at times (e.g. David and Solomon being great kings rather than chieftains of a minor tribe).

- The position and 'ressurrection' of israel in this world, fullfilling much biblical prophecies, including Jerusalem being about the biggest problem in this world. This includes the 'ressurection' of most biblical countries in these days, ie. egypt, persia (Iraque), Jordan and the palestines. Even todays world's interest is the middle east.

So they got one right. Big deal. Have you also counted all the failed prophecies? No, of course not.

- God's 'hand' in my own life, answers to prayers. (will never be evidence for others, I can't explain that)

I can't comment on that, except to point out that many of those who "felt God at work in their lives" are now atheists.

- the biblical 'solution' to the problems in this world, and sin, is totally different than any other religion. It does rule man out. And like the first argument, if it would be made up by men, it would put humanity in the center.

Dying and rising deities are common. Examples: Osiris, Baal, Ishtar, Balder.

- the bible forbids polygamy. (not all people in the bible listen to it though, but they do it against the will of God)
any religion made up by men will and does accept polygamy. Of course it does, because any man that will start a cult will give himself loads of sex.

Perhaps you could explain why David was regarded as such a noble king when he had 100 concubines?

- Revelations describes modern times through the eyes of an ancient man. It's truly amazing how someone describes things that ly beyond his imagination which is pretty ordinary this day.

Not unless you count an LSD trip as representative of "modern times".

- something can't come out of nothing within our universal natural laws. Nothing can be self-creating. I can't believe that. There must be a cause, a designer.

CyberShy, this has been dealt with many times already! A few of the problems:

1. Something comes out of nothing all the time (virtual particles etc).
2. We have never witnessed the formation of a Universe. We don't know if Universes need creators, are uncaused, or are self-caused.
3. There is no reason to assume that the First Cause is a deity.
4. The same problem applies to God.

all these things are backup, I do not believe because of arguments, but when I doubt, I think my arguments over. It's good to have them.

Then why do you keep using the broken ones? Especially the prophecy one: if the Bible is almost always wrong, why use that?

[Gary]

I am aware of a universe around me. I assume I can trust my senses.
It seems that everything has a cause, I assume that is the case. Thus the universe had a cause.
I name this initial cause "God".

Egro, God exists (or at least did).

How can anyone think they can get proof of such things from an Internet forum ? Go out and experience, it's your only real evidence of anything.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Such logic. I am impressed that one person could put so much contradiction into so small a space. Truly an impressive achievement in irrational thinking.

Be honest and admit you have not the faintest idea of what I'm talking about. You don't understand at all do you. My sentence was a quote - a very basic Christian statement.

My quote was from the Bible which you also revealed yourself to be TOTALLY IGNORANT of.

Conclusion: You don't seem to grasp even the simplest piece of theology or basic fundaments of Christianity.

It would be better for you to shut up instead of revealing to all the world and for your own shame that you're an ignoramus.

[Robert]

like I said, I putted up those arguments not to use them against you guys. I said it clearly, it morely was a reply to ckweb.

but if you want to discuss them, that's fine.
But, like I said before, much of them will not work as valid arguments in your eyes.

Me: - The position and 'ressurrection' of israel in this world,

lemmy: Self-fullfilling prophesy

fine if you want to see it that way.
I see that israel still has an important position in this world, and so does the entire ME.
It has more to do with the fact that the largest ammount of oil is being found in the ME than with self-fullfilling.

Ethelred:

Genesis is wrong on most dates

First, I said compared to other scriptures from those days.
Second, I don't claim the bible is infallable or completely accurate. It's history being written up by one person. There might be faults (our dates might be wrong as well!!) but it's still a good accurate book compared to scriptures from it's age.

Rubbish. Show where the pride is in Budda's teachings.

Budda's teachings still put the human in center, it's the human who should lead a good life. Who should meditate. Pherhaps the 'pride' does not apply on budda's teachings though. you might be right on that.

Of course Genesis is clear about humans being better than anything else

it is?

many Christians are pridefull over that.

well, we should not be. But you're right, christians themselvers are 'sinners' as well. I don't claim that christians don't seek pride and all that. I say that the bible teaches us that we should not search for pride in ourself.

Many of the others are exactly the kind of thing could expect an oppressed people to predict.

pherhaps to predict, but it did actually happen as well. 2000 years after the diaspora the return to israel happened. Did this ever happen to other oppressed people in history on such a large scale?

Of course Christians just ignore the failed prophecies.

there are prhopecies that give us a hard time indeed. I won't ignore them, but most of the prophecies that do give a hard time are arguable. You could wonder if it should be taken as a prophecy or as an example. If you should take it literal or not. If the prophecy still has to be fullfilled.

I admit that it makes it difficult to put your trust on it.
And yes, it might give us a change to 'defend' every prophecy in such a way that it works. I can't deny that, and I won't.

But even if you take that all into account, I think those fullfilled prophecies about israel are quiet amazing. Pherhaps not to be token as the defenitive argument in favor of God, but not something to be cashed away too easy.

None of which have been resurrected. All are new states quite unlike the Biblical ones.

that's true in some degree. But if you take into account that the original people are in charge there again. They are independant nations.

Again not an argument, but I think it's good to take notice about it. And about the current problems in the ME.

In fact if Israel ever matches the size of Solomon's kingdom that would make Palestine impossible.

that's true.
That prophecy has not yet been fullfilled.
I don't hope it will be fullfilled soon though, since that will mean a lot of war.
I don't have an answer for that right now.

Persia is not Zorastrian anymore its Islamic.

it's still a threat to israel, I think that's more important.

I can explain it. You believe so you believe things are because of prayer instead of your own doing. What you can't do is prove your point.

that's true.
it's a personal argument. I can't use it to prove my point. And I'm totally aware of the possibility of your explanation.

False. Buddism again makes it clear you do not understand other religions.

well, I might be misinformed about that, but as far as I can see does budhism requier humans to live a good life. ie. do it themselves.

No it doesn't and even if it did that is not even remotely evidence that there is a god much less your specific God.

it does, it says that if man and woman have sex and have sex with someone else after that, they commit adultery.

I agree again on the evidence thing. But I think I have a point that most ancient men would rather chose polygamy to be an option. It might mean that it has been written by gays or women as well indeed.

Is that why Solomon was the blessed of Jehovah? Because he didn't really have hundreds of wives. So the Bible lied about that huh?

the bible says that all man are sinners. So was Solomon, so was David. The bible is clear about that.

The only thing amazing about Revulsions is that anyone takes it seriously after all its failures. It was clearly talking about Rome and that Rome no longer exists.

some parts are indeed about Rome, and all I said earlier about prophecies does count for revelations as well.

Much parts of revelation might be about modern warfire, about globalisation and all that.
So far revelation is not an argument to use by me against others, for the simple reason that it didn't come true yet. But I can imagine it to come true though.

If you compare it to the middle ages, revelations couldn't become true in those days, simple for the fact that the world lacked globalisation. Globalisation was even beyond their imagination.

Besides that statement applies equally to any god. If the Universe cannot come from nothing than neither can your god.

Like I have said before,
a painter does not have to obey the same rules as a painting.
A baker does not need to same ingredients as a bread, and neiter does a god need to obey to the same rules of his creation.

I know the rules of the 'creation'. I agree that it's hard to imagine god according to these rules, but again, these rules don't have to apply.

What would be good would be for you to stop repeating things like the Universe can't come from nothing when that clearly must also apply to any god.

same counts for you. I do not repeat more or less than you do. I can't remember you every rebutted my former argument.

pherhaps you think my answer is a cheap answer.
I can see your point on that, but I can't give any better, and this answer will do.

Another good thing would be to learn something about evolution instead of constantly telling the same utterly false creationist nonsense about it.

I didn't say anything about evolution.
I said something about the pre-bigbang period. That's defenitely not evolution, nor does creation cover that.

Jack the bodiless

(only replying to arguments not yet covered by ethelred)

Much of it was written no earlier than 200 BC

it was?

how to explain why their tribal God kept allowing them to LOSE battles against just about everyone else in the neighborhood. Hence the "we're not worthy" masochistic sentiment. Though they were still rather boastful at times (e.g. David and Solomon being great kings rather than chieftains of a minor tribe).

theories......

except to point out that many of those who "felt God at work in their lives" are now atheists.

well, there are psychological explanations for that. They must have experienced them. And indeed, I might experience that to.

but, like I said, it's more than experience.
but again, I can't explain it. it's a personal thing. I won't deny the possibility of fooling myself though, but I just am about sure that's not the case.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Gary
I am aware of a universe around me. I assume I can trust my senses.
It seems that everything has a cause, I assume that is the case. Thus the universe had a cause.
I name this initial cause "God".

Egro, God exists (or at least did).

You are not only assuming that everything has a cause, which is assuming that there is a cause for matter, you are ALSO assuming that the god does not have a cause otherwise you are really just creating an infinite regression.

While you are out experiencing go and stand between two mirrors there are almost but not quite parralel. See what an infinite regression looks like. What you have done is at best give a suggestion that there might be an infinite series of creators. Why not settle for the stopping the series at the Universe? It makes at least one bit more sense than going one more step and stopping there instead.

[TheStinger]

Surely the whole point of God, if he exists is that he doesn't have to follow any of the physical laws of the universe. He creates them but he doesn't have to follow them.