Prove to me that God exists

by CinemaBlend 257 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  dear thread starter,

  you asked for us to play the devil's advocate. this is a tall order for me, sorry. but an excellent, excellent essay that looks at arguments for the positive (existence of god), are reviewed here:

  http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html

  what i love about this guy's essays, are that they are approachable and well written. i also like that he does not let theist's get away with their implicit assertions in their argument's. basically, a person who believes in god, and has faith in him (afterall, how could they know for sure he exists without faith!), has an implicit assertion that he exists in all of their arguments. therefore they are required to provide proof of his existence, and to define the terms of the debate with a non-theist.

  it's nice being on the rational side of the argument...er, sorry, i meant the default side...
• 

  hmike

  hmike - following your argument, likewise we cant exclude the existence of every character in Starwars, Planets of the Apes and whatever fanatsies any human mind can conjure, can we?

  Of course not. You have to start with what everyone agrees on.

  It might seem like an absurd point, but what's the purpose of a debate if someone considers the premise to be invalid? One has to accept the possibility that God exists if the evidence is to have any value.

  When a crime is committed, if it is impossible that a suspect could have done the deed, the DA does not bring charges because a trial would be a pointless waste.

  I asked, "Can you prove God does not exist?" If someone can, what's the point of a debate? Case closed--issue resolved, at least in this person's mind.

  That's where I'm coming from.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hi hmike,

  One has to accept the possibility that God exists if the evidence is to have any value.

  this is an intersting point. so you are saying that if you are debating with an atheist as to the existence of god, you would require for her to first (for the sake of the debate) at least acknowledge the possibility that god exists, and then interpret the evidence from there?

  I asked, "Can you prove God does not exist?"

  did you really say this? you should see my first post on page 2 of this thread.

  cheers,

  TS
• 

  Abaddon

  Life cannot spontaneously generate

  But gods can?
• 

  willy_think

  seeing is believing

  Behold!

  http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Yw4opgcSeeIJ:www.finnie.org/stuff/cow/sophie
• 

  Qcmbr

  Abbaddon - actually not all - LDS don't belive in spontaneous generation of a God either.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  We know God exists by the impossibility of the contrary

  Debates

  • The Great Debate: Does God Exist?
    Dr. Greg Bahnsen vs. Dr. Gordon Stein

  Greg L. Bahnsen, (1948-1995), was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California, specializing in the theory of knowledge. He previously received the B.A. (magna cum laude, philosophy) from Westmont College, and then simultaneously earned the M.Div. and Th.M. degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary. Dr. Bahnsen lectured to a broad range of evangelical Christian groups at many colleges and conferences. He was an experienced apologist and debater, a clear and cogent teacher of the Christian worldview who was devoted to training believers in understanding and applying the Christian faith to every area of life. He published numerous scholarly articles, a number of well-known books, and has over 1,500 recorded lectures and sermons. Dr. Bahnsen died on December 11th, 1995.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  sorry, after that bio, i am not going to download the debate just to listen to it.
  
  

  :We know God exists by the impossibility of the contrary.

  
  
  this sounds like a variation of the Ontological arguement, first given by Anslem of Canterbury in 1077 CE? defined in his usual muddled way as:
  
  1. By definition, God is the greatest being that can be conceived of.
  2. But if God did not exist in reality, we could imagine a being that had all the other properties of God but that also existed in reality, and this being would be greater than God.
  3. Since God is the greatest being that can be conceived of, this is impossible.
  4. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
  
  but better defined by Adam Marczyk as:
  
  1. By definition, God is an omnipotent, omniscient, maximally benevolent being that exists.
  2. Therefore, God exists.
  
  he continues...
  
  "The fallacy in this should be clear: one cannot simply define something into existence."
  
  "The key point is this: If it is true that a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists only in the imagination, then to define God as the greatest possible being is to implicitly claim that God exists - but this is what the argument is supposed to be trying to prove! The ontological argument uses its own conclusion as one of its initial assumptions - it assumes what it is trying to prove, committing the basic fallacy of circular argument. Therefore, it is logically invalid and proves nothing."
• 

  JamesThomas

  Can anything outside of consciousness itself, be proven to exist? Everything observed could all just be a dream (a movement of consciousness which actually requires no time and space; though appearing to exist in such). There may not be an out there, out there. Yet, there is conscious-awareness; to be conscious of an argument against it, proves it.

  The word "God" is generally associated with Truth and the ultimate Source of all. Since the only truth we currently have at hand is this present moment of conscious-awareness, perhaps we should look deeper here for our Source, rather than is beliefs or fantasies of some other -- out there.

  I mean it makes sense to look for truth within Truth, doesn't it? And to think, we don't need to go anywhere, or join anything. Consciousness is the closest and most intimate of everything.

  Perhaps, if we actually look, the phrase "The Kingdom of God is within you", is not so far fetched after all.

  Be still, and know...

  j
• 

  Terry

  A lot is being accepted without quibble here and that isn't protocol for a debate.

  1.Define your terms. What EXACTLY do you mean when you use the term "god"?

  2.Establish how your representation is being made; your source of data about god.

  3.Connect the veracity of the source to a testable methodology.

  4.Link the tested facts in a logical order and eliminate any counter explanations while applying the rule of parsimony.

  And finally....

  Fall back on irrelevent mystical pronouncements by declaring: "I just choose to believe".

  End of debate.