Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible

Golf

Evanescence, I don't have to 'prove' to anyone why I believe in my Creator.It's my life and my choice, so be it.

Golf
Evanescence

Golf I was just simply answering to CinemaBlend's post, I raised points that people might raise when arguing about god.
I am aware that it is everyones personal desition, Im not telling anyone how to live their life and what to believe in, those were just my views.
and also I was to lazy to read through the whole entire thread so sorry if I missed something,
evanescence
Golf

Evan, I had no evil intent in my comment. I find it useless to engage in matters that are beyond our control, everything becomes conjecture. In the meantime, while people spend time on issues of this nature I accomplish useful things in my life, this is not conjecture it comes with rewards.

Golf
OldSoul

my first point: Science cannot prove that god exists because god is spiritual and not physical.
Science can tell us everything about physical objects but not spiritual

Good point, Evanescence. I am not really sure why everyone is attacking believers of God in this thread. Cinema Blend said he wanted to argue the side of no God, everyone else has been doing it for him. He said he wanted arguments in favor of God. I notice that very few have gone along with his request.
Qcmbr made a similar request recently and was treated to much the same. It makes me feel that maybe those who do not believe in God are extremely threatened or offended by anyone who even gives the appearance of doing so. Otherwise, why would so many feel the need to sidetrack the stated purpose of a thread like this?
I would like to refine a couple of points in your statements. (1) Science can prove physical manifestations of God, that is, science can prove the effects of God's existence. (2) Science cannot tell us everything about physical objects, they are limited to describing those behaviors and attributes that they can discern through observation or mathematics. Often the observation takes the form of the subtractive, which means subjecting a specific physical element to a particular stimulus, recording the result, and trying to "backtrack" to the state prior to the stimulus.
I asked earlier regarding the eternal existence of energy (never had a beginnning), the fact that everything we observe and can test for is energy in some form (in all), and the fact that energy is the ultimate source of life (by it, all things exist). These are each very important claims regarding energy, belief in which has produced many other scientific truths.
I am not asserting that energy is God, but it may very well be a physical manifestation (in 3d-1t space) caused by the existense of God.
Proposition 1: Motion has always existed.
Proposition 2: Matter has always existed.
Proposition 3: Energy has always existed.
None of these have been proven, none of them can be proven, all of them are adhered to faithfully as foundational scientific precepts. On what basis?
Respectfully,
OldSoul
ellderwho

tetra....:i lack a belief in god(s), because of the lack of evidence for his existence. god has not provided me or anyone with any credible evidence that he exists. nature has not provided me with any evidence that he exists. humans have not provided me with any evidence that he exists. it's not that i haven't searched for evidence, or been open to evidence. it just has not been forthcoming.

So as to a logical premise, would you agree that there is room for the possibilty of existence, since all known facts have not been discovered or can be known to make an absolute statement as "God does not exist because I have not seen him."
I suppose the same arguement will/does apply to santa clause, pink unicorns and purple Abe linclons and whomever.
peacefulpete

elderwho. What is "logical" becomes cloudy when cultural pressures to conceed to collective opinion prevail. In this discussion we have the assismilated assumption that an entity of emense proportion and ability is responsible for everything not immediately otherwise accounted for. That is from birth and since most of us were told of an invisible entity we could appeal to and feel indebted to. Since this is the case it is not unreasonable to individually begin our search for reality by testing this assumption, however this is because of an a priori assumption, not a logically arrived at hypothesis. OK , before modern science it was quite excusable to conclude that all that defied simplistic explanation must be due to an unseen animate cause. Spirits and powers animated everything from the clouds, smoking volcanos to human behavior. We had not yet culturally developed to understand the value of testable empirical investigation. To further complicate the matter there is growing evidence that because of the way the mind works ,seeking patterns and associating with previous experience, we are predisposed to create invisible explanations that reflect the visible when we are without an immediate or simple one. Really this is the underlying reason for the cultural pressure just described. Cultures are an emergent character resultant the individual dispositions. This is why science has been a difficult thing for most, if not all, humans. We are fighting our cultural training and our brain's inclination to draw hasty conclusions.
As far as saying that it is a "logical premise" to be open to the idea of an invisible entity of immense proportions. The words don't apply. It is the scientific way of thinking to be nonresistant to new hypotheses that are supportable,at least tentatively, with recognized fact. Therefore it would not be scientific to be open to belief in gnomes or Santa Claus, as these concepts do not account for or even acknowledge recognized facts. There are explanations that work better and that can be established with great certainty. Further the scientific approach denies that laying between the known facts are little pieces of fairy dust.
Logic is a slippery word. Logic for some simply means that because an explanation appears needed any expanation is logical. For others 'logic' means being bound to rules of cause and effect and epirically established knowledge.
I think you understood the meaninglessness of your last post when you remarked about the pink unicorns etc.
toreador

Good point, Evanescence. I am not really sure why everyone is attacking believers of God in this thread. Cinema Blend said he wanted to argue the side of no God, everyone else has been doing it for him. He said he wanted arguments in favor of God. I notice that very few have gone along with his request.
Qcmbr made a similar request recently and was treated to much the same. It makes me feel that maybe those who do not believe in God are extremely threatened or offended by anyone who even gives the appearance of doing so. Otherwise, why would so many feel the need to sidetrack the stated purpose of a thread like this?
I would like to refine a couple of points in your statements. (1) Science can prove physical manifestations of God, that is, science can prove the effects of God's existence. (2) Science cannot tell us everything about physical objects, they are limited to describing those behaviors and attributes that they can discern through observation or mathematics. Often the observation takes the form of the subtractive, which means subjecting a specific physical element to a particular stimulus, recording the result, and trying to "backtrack" to the state prior to the stimulus.
I asked earlier regarding the eternal existence of energy (never had a beginnning), the fact that everything we observe and can test for is energy in some form (in all), and the fact that energy is the ultimate source of life (by it, all things exist). These are each very important claims regarding energy, belief in which has produced many other scientific truths.
I am not asserting that energy is God, but it may very well be a physical manifestation (in 3d-1t space) caused by the existense of God.
Proposition 1: Motion has always existed.
Proposition 2: Matter has always existed.
Proposition 3: Energy has always existed.
None of these have been proven, none of them can be proven, all of them are adhered to faithfully as foundational scientific precepts. On what basis?
Respectfully,
OldSoul

Do you write all this stuff or do you get it from somewhere else?
I like your reasoning by the way.
Tor
ellderwho

I think you understood the meaninglessness of your last post when you remarked about the pink unicorns etc.
Ha! The same standard would apply to both. It works both ways. You cannot prove pink whatevers' do not exist. Same with an entity. Back to square 1.
tetrapod.sapien

elderwho:
the possibilty of existence
i am what is called a "weak atheist", not to be confused with a floundering stance on the matter. rather, a weak atheist is one that states: "i have a lack of a belief in god(s)." the large majority of atheists are weak atheists. it all stems from the default position, lack of evidence and who has the positive assertion and onus of proof, which i have detailed in this thread already. in this post, i detail what it would take for me to convert to theism. i hope it answers your question about possibilities: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/91573/1546446/post.ashx#1546446
so yes, in all fairness, there is a possibility. but while we are talking possibilities, there is also the possibility that santa claus exists and that the Lord of the Rings is inspired word of God. There is just as much proof for santa as there is for god. sorry.
Qcmbr,
1/ Why would people commiting crimes in my name allow you to know where I was or even that 'I am'?
it was tongue-in-cheek, sorry. i was highlighting the disparity between how our real world works, and how the believers world works. so many people running around in gods name, and yet we can't prove he exists. so many people running around in dubbya's name, and yet we can prove he does exist. by your argument, i could say that dubbya doesn't exist even though he commands an entire army. so the effects are the same, but the causes are different. how does the fact that the effects are the same prove that god exists? it doesn't. the rule pf parsomony would say that everyone running around in god's name, is actually running around in some ancient writer's name.
2/ Why does me letting you know I exist make me an atheist? I lurked here before I proved my existence to you all... in both cases I believed in God..
because you are saying that the onus for proof rests on god and atheists (even though any philosopher will tell you that this is absolute rubbish). and yet you say that if god wanted to let us know he existed, he surely would. but that is precisely why i am an atheist! he hasn't let me know he exists. the logical deduction from that, is that he does not exist, NOT that he does. LOL. and so i ask, why are you not an atheist too? but i already know your answer. you said god answered your prayer because he wanted to. he sounds like an immature god to me.
and speaking of logical, Q, you keep saying that the onus for proof lies on the atheist and god, and you also keep smuggling implicit assertions into all your arguments for why this is so. ooops! there's god again! you keep saying that the onus for proof lies on god, and yet what do you really think that statement means to an atheist??!! why would we give it any weight, since we have a lack of belief in a god!? jeepers Q, you can't just keep asserting that god exists and expect to make an argument logical from just wishing it so!
so, we are still arguing about onus of proof and implied assertion (the difference between default and positive positions). what will conclude this childish part of the debate? can we move onto evidence for gods existence now please? i have even provided what i would need to convert, and no one has touched on it yet. so, i get back to CinemaBlends original challenge: PROVE TO ME THAT GOD EXISTS. i'm waiting still, ten pages into this debate.
they can only report the event / evidence.
so now you are some sort of news reporter for a god that only makes himself visible to certain people? if you are just a reporter, then give me some of this so-called evidence you say you are reporting on!
as the believer I drop out the picture..
are you serious? okay, let me put it this way: god will not show himself to me as per what is reasonable (see link above if you haven't already). so from this, i conclude he most likely does not exist. i am still waiting, but not holding my breath. then you, the person asserting that he does exist, tells me you have no reason to to prove his existence. you just "know" that he exists. where does that leave me Q? i am going to say "oh, okay then, i guess he does exist."??!! no. i am going to say: "god doesn't want to show me that he exists, and neither does his followers. hmmm...i guess he really does not exist." - come on. really!
it was just the simple idea of how a superior intelligence could influence another intelligence no more.
i'm sorry, it really doesn't show me anything of value, since i have a lack of a belief in god. illustrations do not qualifiy as positive proof. it was okay in ancient times, but our requirements have evolved since.
takes a tremendous amount of maturity and self discipline to not reject other peoples 'truth'
my friend's kid believes in fairies and santa claus with all her little heart. i don't make fun of her to her face, but i do categorically reject her "truth". certainly there are some gods that you reject? do you accept vishnu and allah as gods ? if yes, then all i can say is "wow, man, you are wild!" if no, then all i can say is "that is exactly how i feel about your god". perhaps this will give you, or any other theist in this debate a place to start from.
Let me make clear though that I'm not suggesting that we should all run helter skelter after things just because someone somewhere said so..that's the flip side to maturity - wisdom IMHO.
again, so you are an atheist then? because this is why i am.
tetrapod.sapien

Ha! The same standard would apply to both. It works both ways. You cannot prove pink whatevers' do not exist
how many times do we have to show that the onus of proof lies on the believer. don't ask us to prove a negative! sheesh!

Prove to me that God exists

Share this