Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible

ellderwho

Ts:OMG,
Huh?
tetrapod.sapien

Huh?
yes. a little tounge-in-cheek exasperation.
CinemaBlend

Jesus was seen by many witnesses and he claimed to know God / be God.
Many prophets have seen God and recorded that experience in scripture.

Really? Prove it. First you'd have to prove the Bible is literal fact and that's a whole nother thing.

Then you have to add to the mix the millions of people who have had spiritual experiences - now this was my point about what evidences would be allowed - materialists would be inclined to reject anything of a spiritual nature as unprovable. There are however several instances of spiritual experience that have been shared (Toronto Blessing).
I've never seen credible evidence of "spiritual experiences" you yourself admit they are unprovable, so that's no kind of evidence.

Anything else?
CinemaBlend

Natures art has a sense to it, so does the consciousness required to appreciate it. These things do not prove the existence of a personal god. What they can do is make us aware of a greater consciousness which we can choose to be a part of instead of remaining isolated.

Greater consciousness is a fancy term that doesn't mean much, and again, you admit this is no proof of God, so I'm still waiting for it.

Perhaps to many people god is an expression for a concept they cannot explain. In the process of trying to make this concept more understandable they attribute human qualities and gender to the concept of a god. It as this point that the whole concept becomes flawed.

I hope you enjoyed your walk!

Nice walk, still no proof.
CinemaBlend

..sometimes I wonder whether their is room in an equal society for anyone religious! I find it strange that condescension, rudeness and sarcasm colour many of the comments. It makes it kinda hard to say anything if people's lame arse answer to anything proposed requires reference to a part of someones religion that they don't believe in.

Yes, it's hard to defend something as stupid as religion I agree.

I believe in God - it is probably impossible to prove that sort of thing here on a message board any more than its possible to prove love, hope or consciousness - these things only come by the living and experiencing. One day maybe those who are so quick to deride God and His adherants will have a one on one personal experience with Deity - at least you'll know what the other side of the arguement feels like - the one where you've had something incredibly precious and when you share it other people just take the mick.

Love is a feeling. You don't need to prove it, you feel it yourself. Consciousness I can prove... because if you're reading this you're concious. Hope is an abstract concept, not a super power than can part the red sea.

So you want people to believe in God based on what... the fact that you think they should? Flimsy.
patio34

I haven't read all nine pages of this thread, so pls forgive me if someone has made this point.
I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's response to this subject: "The more extraordinary the claims, the more extraordinary the proof must be." The burden of proof is on the one making such extraordinary claims as there is a supernatural, divine, all-powerful being.
He likens it to saying there's an invisible dragon living in your garage, but you can't see it, smell it, see any evidence at all and can't test for it, but you should believe it. Now you can't prove there is no dragon living in the garage, but a reasonable person would not believe it.
OldSoul

Some force/object cause some other force/object to act a certain way. This force/object is observed to cause this other force/object to react in the same way predictably for 80 years in dozens of studies. Is that relationship then established as a fact?
Would it still be a fact if only one person observed it?
Respectfully,
OldSoul
Abaddon

OldSoul
Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans, or indeed Tolkien fans, are caused by some other force/object to act a certain way. This force/object is observed to cause the person to react in the same way predictably for years.
The relationship is established as a fact, BUT, me old buckeroo, that doesn't mean that Qui-Gon Jin, Legolas or Wesley Crusher are REAL, does it?
Just because people act a certain way because they believe something doesn't mean what they believe in is real in an objective sence, although onviously it's real in the subjective sense, but that's not the point, is it? Think of all the stupid superstions people have had about not doing x because the pixies will do y, or of throwing salt over their shoulder if they spill it, or of having seven years bad luck if you break a mirror. Lord knows people believed it, but it isn't real!!!
For instance, if I wished to start proving the existence of God scientifically, what would I need?
Good question.
Your answer is self-serving though, and reeks of paranoia, although your implication that god has no marketable value is hysterical.
People have been making money off the idea of god since someone thought it of, and you now say it won't be proved as no one would be willing to invest in the research as they couldn't make money out of it.
Errrr... but people HAVE been making money out of it even when they couldn't prove it! LOL.
Please read the article on Wikipedia about 'scientific method', and then tell me why god cannot be proved in a scientifically acceptable manner, and no silly excuses about why scientists won't find god that fall apart under critical examination, okay?
ellderwho

D.Dog..Both of you act as if the only reason someone would believe in God is because they're dumb or they just don't have enough facts. You suggest that you are smarter than believers.

Yeah I wonder how smart you have to be, to come to athiest' understandings? I guess us "believers" are mentally challenged.
Perhaps that was the case while a J-dub, when there was a God, an "a god."
Abaddon

Deputy Dog
"Oh, okay then" was my first comment to you. You quoted my second comment.
As for setting the tone - you had done that already;
"We know God exists by the impossibility of the contrary"
"I guess you will have to listen, or are you as arrogant as Dr. Gordon Stein."
"I thought you needed the practice?"
"Here's a clue. The fact that you want to debate this topic, proves that you know God does exist."
"Wrong again! It's really not open for debate. It is impossible for God not to exist."
"Does Terry exist?"
"Is Terry truthful?"
Seems you are enough of a hypocrite to expect to act one way in a discusion and be treated another. You were confrontational, arrogant, used caustic humour... and whine like a baby when you get treated the way you treat others...
This is a discussion board. It is not a post a link to a recording so you don't have to do anything other than point at the link and say 'see I am right!' board. I can understand why you did it; based upon your total failure to address ANYTHING I have said about presuppositonalism, you obviously can't defend your own beliefs yourself in your own words and have to resort to cut and pasting. Nothing wrong with C&Ping, except when the person C&Ping can't express what they C&P in their own words. Then you are not having a discussion with THEM, but with what they think their C&P'd material said.
You also seem to be ignorant of the fact I actually know a fair bit about presuppositonalism and have no desire to waste time listening to a discussion which will fail to address the basic, insoluble and fatal errors in the philosophy. I know the premisises of the philosophy, they haven't changed. They're still as stupid as they were.
Both of you act as if the only reason someone would believe in God is because they're dumb or they just don't have enough facts.
Whereas you are clever because you think god exists because you think god exists? Ha!
In any case, your characterisation of my argument is false. I don't believe in god because there is no evidence of the sort that would be acceptable in a court of law or a scientific experiment that proves god exists.
My whole point is that you are making the extraordinary claims. You two say that babies (not just some, but all) are born atheist,and because you think you know something about their brain you imply that you know a newborns first thoughts.
What I say about babies is backed up by all the knowledge there is about the infant brain. Infants 'know' about a very limited number of things when they are born. As you assume god exists you assume babies are born knowing about god. This is an assertion, just as your belief in god is an assertion.
I could claim that babies are born knowing about the tooth fairy. You can't disprove this, but I have no evidence for this, so it is a wild and unsupported a claim as your claim that babies are born knowing of god.
You see, this gets right to the issue. I believe it is impossible for God not to exist,
We really, like really really really get that point. So the **** what? You thinking it doesn't prove god exists, not unless you are so swollen with egotism you will tell me every thought of yours is absolutely right. Charles Manson thought 'Helter Skelter' was a call by the Beatles for a race war; he wasn't right!
Yet you don't think that it is extraordinary, for the complex order in the universe, like life, social order (even in lower forms of life), the sciences, communication and much much more, to just happen at random.
And you saying that it happened at random shows you do not know enough about evolution to make any judgement. Evolution is not a random process. To discuss evolution with someone who thinks it is a random process is like discussing history with someone who thinks wars 'just happen'. A waste of time.
I know an awful lot more about presuppositionalism than you know about evolution. If you like we can test each other; ten questions you make about presuppositionalism and ten questions I make about evolution.

But as your beliefs are based on the presumption of you being right, you obviously don't need to learn anything about a subject as you already know your opinion is right.

No, my beliefs are base on a presupposition, that "God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary",
Which I have commented on...
and so are yours, that "this was all whipped together by chance",
Which is a false characterisation of evolutionary beliefs.
Funny how I know what you believe and state it accurately but you when stating what I believe make fatal errors in each sentence.
Now, based on my previous experience in discussing things with presupposionalists, you will either quote something YOU SAY proves you are right, but be incapable of expressing why in your own words, or you will turn nasty and start flaming, or you will run away.
Why don't you be the one that was different? Set me ten questions about presuppositionalism, or even five if ten is too much effort. I will set you questions on evolution.
We will then be able to establish whether I know more about your beliefs or whether you know more about my beliefs. Then I can correct your misconceptions about evolution et. al, and you can respond, and vice-versa.

Prove to me that God exists

Share this