Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ellderwho

  ts: there seems to be no room for non-theists in our society! who was the last atheist you can name who held an important government office?

  You obvisiously have a limited view of society in general.

  elderwho,
  

  go ahead and name one then.
  

  Feeling persecuted are ya?

  if you say so.

  Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hiltler, Robert James Hawke, former Australian prime minister. Poor athiest

  Hawke served as Australian PM from March 1983 to December 1991. In answer to a seven-year-old boy on a phone-in segment of This Day Tonight (Australian TV current affairs program; broadcast date not given), Hawke said "Until I get some evidence one way or the other which is compelling to me, I'm going to have to remain an agnostic..." quoted in Bob Hawke: A portrait, Robert Pullan, Methuen Australia, 1980, p137

  Edited to add famous Atheist who held an important Government office:

  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman statesman, orator, and philosopher (106-43 BCE).
  Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the Younger," Roman stoic philosopher, writer, and politician (4-65)."Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."
  Gallus Petronius, Roman courtier and wit (1st cent.)."It is fear that first brought Gods into the world."
  John of Lackland, English King (1199-1216) (1167?-1216).

  Benjamin Franklin, American statesman, scientist, writer, printer (1706-1790)."Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so."
  "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

  Frederick the Great, Prussian king (1712-1786).". . . you will certainly grant me that neither antiquity nor whatever nation has devised a more repulsive and blasphemous absurdity than that of eating your God.

  Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor (1769-1821).A theist, for sure, but he knocked religion:
  "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
  "All religions have been made by men."
  "as for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them." [paraphrased]

  Robert Green Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer (1833-1899)."The universe is all the God there is."
  "Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."
  Leon Trotsky, Russian revolutionary and Soviet statesman (1879-1940).
  Jawaharlal Nehru, Indian statesman (1889-1964).A self-professed atheist, he said of India, "No country or people who are slaves to dogma and dogmatic mentality can progress." [Key Ideas in Human Thought]

  Mao Tse-tung, Chinese Communist leader and theorist (1893-1976).
  Baroness Wootton, politician (1897-1988).
  Olof Palme, Swedish prime minister (1927-1986).
• 

  Kenneson

  Elder,

  I can think of a better candidate than Hitler or even Stalin. Hiter was born into Catholicism, but later rejected it. He never advocated atheism, but rather a Germanic neo-paganism. You're safer to name Stalin, who was born into the Russian Orthodox Church, but later did become atheist. But as far as I'm concerned, neither are anything to brag about. Hawke is an agnostic, not atheist. But I would classify Mao Tse-Tung, chairman of the People's Republic of China, as pretty much an atheist from the get-go. But I wouldn't brag about him either. In all fairness, I should add that there have been individuals who have claimed to be believers, whom I do not admire either. There have been, however, important other atheists in the field of government, science, inventions, cinema, music, writing, etc..whom we can be proud of.

  I have seen lists consisting of believers and atheists in many fields and areas. (There's even a list of famous Jehovah's Witnesses). I fail to see why we can't be proud of all who have achieved, atheist as well as believer.
• 

  Terry

  For those who want proof that God exists, can you give me one good reason why anything should exist at all?

  You'd have to tell me what reason has to do with it in the first place.

  I suspect you are trying to smuggle in a hidden concept here: CAUSE.

  Reason purports to give cause.

  In a causeless universe there would BE no reason.

  So, you are removing at the outset the possibility of a causeless universe.

  That is a dandy trick!

  Once you have removed a causeless universe what are we left with? Why a universe that is CAUSED! This, naturally, implies a CAUSER. It is a hop, skip and jump to God from there.

  Nice work.

  And why we humans should be able to figure everything out anyway

  We are able to figure out what is necessary for our survival. Beyond that, it is cherry on the whip topping.

  I must say you've constructed a parlor trick with your reasoning.

  You go on to slip in a hidden premise without doing the grunt work necessary to even establish a premise in the first place. Simply: Presto change-o!

  "What human has exhausted every single possibility in his exploration for God?" You ask.

  You've slipped God in under the door! Plus, the added bonus of getting us exploring for him. And, as if that isn't enough---you have set us the task of "every possibility"!

  We're so busy we don't see your hocus pocus.

  Why not start off with an HONEST premise instead?

  You see, this is how it works: THE ONE MAKING THE EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM is the one who bears the responsibility to produce the EXTRAORDINARY PROOF. Not the other way around.

  Nice try.

  T.
• 

  Terry

  FAITH and utter DISBELIEF are twin sons of different mothers.

  A neutral observer sees more.

  T.
• 

  EvilForce

  Does it matter if he / she exists? Would you really do anything differently with your life?
• 

  the_classicist

  Try this book by Prof. Richard Swinburne, a philosopher of Oxford University: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0199271682/qid=1117678813/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-1954930-1191926?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
• 

  the_classicist

  Try this book by Prof. Richard Swinburne, a philosopher of Oxford University: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0199271682/qid=1117678813/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-1954930-1191926?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
• 

  ellderwho

  Kennesson,

  Im not sure I get your point? However I was asked to name one that held a "government office."
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Is that the best you can do?

  D Dog,

  it's all i wish to do with you. you have not read my posts and digested them. the main thing i have shown you, that the onus for "proof" lies on you (the extraordinary claim-maker), you have categorically denied. you change the subject and run the debate in meaningless circles. this shows an ignorance of the rules of engagement in a debate of this type, and an arrogance that must be obvious to more people than just myself.

  but, since i know that the onus of proof requirement is totally lost on you, i will break protocol and respond to your request for what i would consider non-laughible evidence for me to believe in your daddy, God Inc.. this is illogical in a god debate, but whatever. it may be useful to someone else. however, i am not going to waste much time formulating it because of your track record, and why re-invent the wheel when there is a good source out there already. so here is a quote from ebonmusings.org that words it better than i could. let me also say to you that if any of this evidence can be provided, i would probably convert immediately. enjoy:

• Verified, specific prophecies that couldn't have been contrived.
  If the Bible, for example, said, "On the first day of the first month in the year two thousand and ten, the pillars of the earth will shake and a great part of the New World will be lost to the sea," and then January 1, 2010 comes and a tremendous earthquake sends California to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, I would become a believer. No points are awarded under any of the following conditions:
  
  • If the prophecy is vague, unclear or garbled (like Nostradamus' ramblings, for example). It must be detailed, specific and unambiguous in its prediction and wording.
    

  • If the prophecy is trivial. Anyone could predict that it will be cold next winter, or that this drought/plague/flood will eventually subside. The prophecy must predict something surprising, unlikely or unique.
    

  • If the prophecy is obviously contrived for other reasons. No official seer or court astrologer ever predicted that the king he worked for would be a brutal, evil tyrant who would ruin the country.
    

  • If the prophecy is self-fulfilling; i.e., if the mere fact of the prophecy's existence could cause people to make it come true. The Jewish people returned to their homeland in Israel just as the Bible said they would, but this isn't a genuine prediction - they did it because the Bible said they would. The predicted event can't be one that people could stage.
    

  • If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the writing of the prophecy itself can't be shown to have preceded the event.
    

  • If the prophecy predicts an event that already happened and the happening of that event can't be verified by independent evidence. For example, Christian apologists claim that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies, but the authors of the New Testament obviously had access to those prophecies also; what would have prevented them from writing their story to conform to them? The extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus is so scanty that it is impossible to disprove such a proposal.
    

  • And finally, if the prophecy is the lone success among a thousand failures. Anyone can throw prophecies against the wall until one sticks. The book or other source from which it comes must have at least a decently good record on other predictions.

  These conditions, I think, are eminently reasonable, and are only what would be expected of a true prophet with a genuine gift.

• Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn't available at the time.
  If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn't possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me. A passage about the atomic theory of matter or the heliocentric solar system would be interesting, but not conclusive, since the Greeks, for example, proposed those ideas long ago independent of any claim to divine revelation. A mention of the theory of evolution would have been impressive. A reference to the germ theory of disease, or the laws of electromagnetics, would have been compelling. But what would be indisputable proof would be an elucidation of a truly modern theory of physics, such as relativity or quantum mechanics - not just something that the people of the time couldn't possibly have known of, but something so counter-intuitive that the odds against guessing at it correctly would be staggering. Just think: What if Jesus had said something like this?
  

  "Verily, verily, I say unto thee that thine energy is as thine mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself."

  Of course people of the time would have been baffled, but just imagine how many souls it would have saved today. As with the prophecy item, there must be independent verification that the piece of knowledge was written in texts that existed well before it was actually discovered by science.

• Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
  If cities condemned as sinful by preachers tended to explode in flames for no apparent reason, if glowing auras of holy light sometimes appeared around believers to protect them from harm, or if atheists and only atheists were regularly struck by lightning, this would be compelling proof. But it wouldn't have to be so dramatic; even minor but objectively verifiable miracles would do, especially if they could be invoked by prayer. If a hospital did a double-blind study to determine if intercessory prayer helps the sick, and it was discovered that only the patients prayed for by members of a certain religion experienced a dramatic, statistically significant increase in recovery rate, and this result could be repeated and confirmed, I would convert. This one shouldn't be so hard, especially for the Christians - after all, Jesus told them that they would be able to work miracles through prayer!
  

• Any direct manifestation of the divine.
  I'm not that hard to convert; I'll be happy to believe in God if he tells me to in person, as long as he does it in such a way that I could be sure that it was not a hallucination (for example, in the presence of multiple reliable witnesses, none of which are in a highly emotional or otherwise altered state). Where are the voices speaking out of burning bushes, or out of thin air when people get baptized? In Old Testament times, Moses saw God so often that he knew him on a first-name basis. Why doesn't this happen any more today?
  

• Aliens who believed in the exact same religion.
  And one more, though this one is just a bit off the wall. If humanity was to contact an extraterrestrial civilization, and if said extraterrestrials had a religion that was exactly like some religion on Earth, I would become a believer. (Though it would raise some interesting theological problems for Christians. Does Jesus have to travel to every planet in the universe individually, dying and being resurrected on each one?)