what proof is there that god exists? (3 Viewers)

[jotdan]

sel-explanatory,im currently a non-believer.so enlighten me with your'e insight,any way you can and persuade me with near unconditional certainty that any kind of "god" exists and what does this mean for my life.

provide evidence for youre statements.and only support youre argument and don't comment or rebuff other thoeries or idea' s i want youre knowledge and none of this this is wrong therefore i am right such "abiogenisis is unexplainable therefore god exists.you get the idea.

Evidence would contradict the concept of faith, so if a religion is real the god wouldnt want to leave proof of their existence

and besides, you obviously dont want to believe atm, so peoples experiences of faith- the closest thing I know of to evidence, would just seem like bullshit to you anyway- whats the point of this thread then?

 

[doggieslover]

if no one can provide a rationale reason that "god" exists than therefore we can safely conclude that he doesn't.

personally i find that god is a "feeling" rather than an intellectual belief.it just makes people feel good thats all.And there's always a choice between using your'e reason or youre emotions.i find that resons are mentally benefitial while emotions are physically benefitial.thats my philosophy anyway.

That reasoning is flawed and illogical, sorry. You are gonig to have to look at the very nature of the thing. Please read the post slowly:

First of all define the question: Who/What is God/god if He(he)(she) exists?

God by definition I think we will leave as this common ground: THE all powerful Being, Creator of the World.

So the question becomes, does an all powerful Being, Creator of the World, exist?
Your question is for proof of Gods existence and you claim that, "if no one can provide a rationale reason that "god" exists than therefore we can safely conclude that he doesn't."

However you fail to take into consideration the simple definition of God, as an allpowerful being, the Source of all things, if this is what we are referring to when we say "god" then there is no "Rational reason" why god exists, because God first IS. Do you understand what I am saying? If he is the source of Being, then he is not reliant on the the things he created for him to Be, therefore there are no observable REASONS for his existence. I do not think I am expressing my thoughts very clearly, I will try and re word it:
If God IS the source of BEING, then he is beyond reasons for existence since he IS existence, this is a complicated concept.

I, personally, have concluded that God exists, and he exists completely irrelevant of my emotional state, I could go into all the reasons I concluded this but that would be a waste of time. The point is that these reasons do not mean God exists. A Truth is not true as a result of reasons, rather because it is true it has reasons. (Do you understand?). This simple fact shows there is no way of proving beond reasonable doubt that God exists, however there are reasons which say his existence is possible.
My mind works n its own weird plain so if you do not follow me let me know, I am simply sharing my own reasoning.



It is reasonable to say there is a God, (see Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments
or
On the Proofs for the Existence of God of Saint Thomas Aquinas)
but God is not the result of reasoned argument. Argument is the result of Gods reason.

 

[BradCube]

Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.

This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.

Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.

Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.

Proposal:

Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.

Reasoning:

If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.

Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.

Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.

I might try and rework this reasoning into a logical argument so we can better look at what is being asserted.

1. If God is omniscient, his foreknowledge of human choices is true.
2. If God foreknows all that will happen, then there is only one way that things will happen
3. If there is only one way that things will happen, then our choices are predetermined.
4. If our choices are predetermined then we lack free will.
5. God is omniscient
6. Therefore God's foreknowledge is true. (from 1 and 5)
7. Therefore, there is only one way that things will happen (From 1 and 2)
8. Therefore our choices are predetermined (from 2 and 3)
9. Therefore we lack free will (from 3 and 4)

I believe that premise (3) is false. God's foreknowledge that something will happen doesn't necessitate pre-determinism because it does not imply that it must have happened. In accordance with a libertarian view of free will (which seems to be the definition this argument is working from), if one was to choose a different way, it's simply that God would have known differently than what he in fact does. Part of the problem I think when addressing this issue is that we confuse the logical order of God's foreknowledge. God does not know what we will do because he has decided what we will do - rather His foreknowledge is simply based upon what we will do. That is to say, God's foreknowledge doesn't determine our action, rather, our action is what determines Gods foreknowledge. Just because the chronological order of the knowledge is reversed, does not place a limit on our freedom (since the knowledge is still the logical consequent of our freedom).

Also note however the numerous ways that christian theologians have addressed this problem over the years. Under the argument provided above, one is assuming that a libertarian account of free will is true. I myself personally lean this way but it is worth noting other accounts of freewill such as compatibilism which may be more associated with Calvinistic doctrines. Such a view of freedom would provide an out at premise (4)

There are also theologians who deny that God's omniscience extends into the knowledge of the future. They maintain essentially that future counter-factuals are beyond knowable reality (and must be in order to be free) and so are even unknowable to God. Whilst I regard such an account to be bordering on heresy when it comes to Christian doctrine, if defensible it could provide an out at premise (1). This view is generally known as open theism.

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Given my response above, we needn't say that such individuals are destined for hell and heaven as though there is no other way it could have been. If libertarian freedom is true or at minimum even possible, then we cannot guarantee that these people were pre-dertemined/destined.

Nevertheless, it could still be asked that even if libertarian free were real why would God create people who would freely choose to go to Hell? Essentially I think that as long as it is even possible for God to have other overriding factors for allowing these choices, then such an objection cannot be taken too seriously. So what sort of over-riding factors could these be?

Imagine a possible world in which all were saved but the population only consisted of a few people. Any time God added anymore, there would always be at least one that freely chose to turn away. It could be that our current world presents the maximum possible amount of people "saved".

Now, of course, that may not be an overriding factor - but so long as it's even possible that there is an over riding factor then one cannot object that God acted unjustly or in a malevolent way to those who chose Hell.

For a good lay treatment of theological fatalism check out The Only Wise God.

 

[kaz1]

Can you see oxygen? can you see an atom? can you see current? yet they all exist.

The evidence that god exists comes from logical reasoning and arriving at an objective conclusion.

Man is either the product of biological evolution or creation right? there exist no other possibility.
Now by dismantling, annihilating and ruling out the possibly that man is the product of biological evolution,
we are left with the conclusion that man is indeed the product of creation, hence gods existence is proved.

Now Evolutionary biology tells us that modern humans (us) and homo neanderthals evolved from homo heidelbergensis. Now to make such a claim, you obviously need evidence to support this idea. right? the evidence involved transition fossils to show the transition and gradual evolution of homo heidelbergensis into modern human and homo neanderthal, however here is the bombshell. NO TRANSITION FOSSILS EXIST to show this gradual change in the hominid species. Even Darwin himself said that if no transition fossils are found, then his theory would be nothing.
Im not saying transitional fossils dont exist at all, im saying human transition fossils to illustrate human evolution DONT exist. Therefore modern science has come to know that the fossil record indeed does have many inconsistencies and darwins theory of evolution does leave us with many missing links, infact millions of missing links to complete the human evolutionary idea, and without crucial and vital evidence such as these missing human transition fossils, the theory of evolution has once again been debunked.

Therefore after coming to a sound and objective conclusion, we find ourselves left with one answer. that human beings are the product of creation and not evolution.

I hope i clarified a couple of things. i have so much other things to say about why and how god does exist through my very simple and logical illustrations, but im afraid ill leave you all bored lol.

P.s. just remember, " nothing doesn't create everything, something creates everything"

Very strong microscope and an ammeter.

 

[absorber]

no its not

i think you will all find this article very enlightening

Does God Exist - Six Reasons to Believe that God is Really There - Existence of God - Proof of God

Heheh, that's clever, using science to amaze people into believing in God. Can't people accept a fucking coincidence or two? Exactly the reason why we doubt there is no life out there is because the CHANCES of earth forming are tiny. But this doesn't necessarily mean that it's not possible. One thinks winning the lottery is near impossible, but it happens.

 

[Cookie182]

Can you see oxygen? can you see an atom? can you see current? yet they all exist.

The evidence that god exists comes from logical reasoning and arriving at an objective conclusion.

Man is either the product of biological evolution or creation right? there exist no other possibility.
Now by dismantling, annihilating and ruling out the possibly that man is the product of biological evolution,
we are left with the conclusion that man is indeed the product of creation, hence gods existence is proved.

Now Evolutionary biology tells us that modern humans (us) and homo neanderthals evolved from homo heidelbergensis. Now to make such a claim, you obviously need evidence to support this idea. right? the evidence involved transition fossils to show the transition and gradual evolution of homo heidelbergensis into modern human and homo neanderthal, however here is the bombshell. NO TRANSITION FOSSILS EXIST to show this gradual change in the hominid species. Even Darwin himself said that if no transition fossils are found, then his theory would be nothing.
Im not saying transitional fossils dont exist at all, im saying human transition fossils to illustrate human evolution DONT exist. Therefore modern science has come to know that the fossil record indeed does have many inconsistencies and darwins theory of evolution does leave us with many missing links, infact millions of missing links to complete the human evolutionary idea, and without crucial and vital evidence such as these missing human transition fossils, the theory of evolution has once again been debunked.

Therefore after coming to a sound and objective conclusion, we find ourselves left with one answer. that human beings are the product of creation and not evolution.

I hope i clarified a couple of things. i have so much other things to say about why and how god does exist through my very simple and logical illustrations, but im afraid ill leave you all bored lol.

P.s. just remember, " nothing doesn't create everything, something creates everything"

This post makes me want to vomit.

 

[Cookie182]

I don't see a problem with this situation. It's just a point which undermines our own arrogance. No issues here.

Oh yeah, beyond the fact that if you accept this proposition your willingly accepting the invitation to be a slave. A hand-crafted robot, destined for eternal pleasure or pain, every wince, every movement is not your own. God not only knows your inner most desires and fears, but he punishes you for even the most sinister of your thoughts: though it is all ultimately traceable back to his hands. This is an eternal, celestial dictatorship- an unescapable, detestable and malevolent totalitarian regime, and I for one stand up and say no!

 

[Cookie182]

I might try and rework this reasoning into a logical argument so we can better look at what is being asserted.

1. If God is omniscient, his foreknowledge of human choices is true.
2. If God foreknows all that will happen, then there is only one way that things will happen
3. If there is only one way that things will happen, then our choices are predetermined.
4. If our choices are predetermined then we lack free will.
5. God is omniscient
6. Therefore God's foreknowledge is true. (from 1 and 5)
7. Therefore, there is only one way that things will happen (From 1 and 2)
8. Therefore our choices are predetermined (from 2 and 3)
9. Therefore we lack free will (from 3 and 4)

I believe that premise (3) is false. God's foreknowledge that something will happen doesn't necessitate pre-determinism because it does not imply that it must have happened. In accordance with a libertarian view of free will (which seems to be the definition this argument is working from), if one was to choose a different way, it's simply that God would have known differently than what he in fact does. Part of the problem I think when addressing this issue is that we confuse the logical order of God's foreknowledge. God does not know what we will do because he has decided what we will do - rather His foreknowledge is simply based upon what we will do. That is to say, God's foreknowledge doesn't determine our action, rather, our action is what determines Gods foreknowledge. Just because the chronological order of the knowledge is reversed, does not place a limit on our freedom (since the knowledge is still the logical consequent of our freedom).

Also note however the numerous ways that christian theologians have addressed this problem over the years. Under the argument provided above, one is assuming that a libertarian account of free will is true. I myself personally lean this way but it is worth noting other accounts of freewill such as compatibilism which may be more associated with Calvinistic doctrines. Such a view of freedom would provide an out at premise (4)

There are also theologians who deny that God's omniscience extends into the knowledge of the future. They maintain essentially that future counter-factuals are beyond knowable reality (and must be in order to be free) and so are even unknowable to God. Whilst I regard such an account to be bordering on heresy when it comes to Christian doctrine, if defensible it could provide an out at premise (1). This view is generally known as open theism.


Given my response above, we needn't say that such individuals are destined for hell and heaven as though there is no other way it could have been. If libertarian freedom is true or at minimum even possible, then we cannot guarantee that these people were pre-dertemined/destined.

Nevertheless, it could still be asked that even if libertarian free were real why would God create people who would freely choose to go to Hell? Essentially I think that as long as it is even possible for God to have other overriding factors for allowing these choices, then such an objection cannot be taken too seriously. So what sort of over-riding factors could these be?

Imagine a possible world in which all were saved but the population only consisted of a few people. Any time God added anymore, there would always be at least one that freely chose to turn away. It could be that our current world presents the maximum possible amount of people "saved".

Now, of course, that may not be an overriding factor - but so long as it's even possible that there is an over riding factor then one cannot object that God acted unjustly or in a malevolent way to those who chose Hell.

For a good lay treatment of theological fatalism check out The Only Wise God.

I'm quite curious, as the most intelligent Christian on the forum, do you still admit the need for "faith"?

That is, how do you reach the conclusion that the christian god exists, beyond any rational conclusions (though challengable) you may have reached in relation to the need for a "first cause designer"? Simply the Bible?

-

 

[mirakon]

note: I did not say I believed in it, I just don't see why this situation cannot exist. This point proves nothing.

Exactly, whether you find believing in God is bad or not is irrelevant. If you're assuming he's bad, he can still exist which the thread is fundamentally about.

I just believe that Non-existence as a concept is flawed. Reiterating:

'Being in a state of non-existence means that non-existence exists which is a contradiction. Hence there is no such thing as non-existence. There is only a state of existence. Thus everything exists (including God)'
__________________

 

[Planck]

'Being in a state of non-existence means that non-existence exists which is a contradiction. Hence there is no such thing as non-existence. There is only a state of existence. Thus everything exists (including God)'
__________________

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

"THERE CAN'T BE TWO STATES OK"

A thing can exist and a thing can not exist.

 

[mirakon]

"THERE CAN'T BE TWO STATES OK"

That's not what I said.

 

[johnosm]

That's not what I said.

omfg

 

[Pyrokinetic]

Theres no need to 'prove' god exists. Its all a matter of faith. & Anyway, it would be incredibly naive for people to think that man can explain everything that occurs in this world. There are things that exist which man cannot rationalise. One of these is faith. Another is love. People can tell you what love is in books, movies, songs etc, but the only love that exists is the one which you feel. Same with faith, proving whether god does exist or not is irrelevant. Its the same as if posing the question 'What proof is there that love exists?', you can't ever completely rationalise it. And theres no need to. I don't think theres any concrete scientific evidence of god's existence, but why does that matter. Faith is just believing in what you hope for.

And im not religious fyi, im agnostic.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Can you see oxygen? can you see an atom? can you see current?

I get what you're saying man but those were really shit examples. There's a mountain of evidence for all those things: There's no evidence for God. None. Suck a chode.

 

[*TRUE*]

Correct me I'm wrong. Just wanna say that I can't understand why or how people would believe in a god where no tangible evidence is present and relying just on faith. Isn't this santa claus all over again? A means used to control or regulate behavior? Promising rewards (presents or heaven) for good behavior? Something we grow out of as we mature, as science develops and we are able discover more logical rationales for the things around us (i.e. how the presents ended up under the christmas tree). It seems to me that in our modernised society, religion does not have the same impact and hold on us as it once did centuries ago (homosexuals, dissolution of marraige, oppression on women etc). My only explanation for this is that with so many breakthrough in science mixed society's changing morals/ethical values (homosexuals and oppression of women again), many people's beliefs were challenged. Of course, I cannot explain the origins of our world with hard, fool proof evidence, as I'm sure noone else here can, but, the idea of a supreme god being present seems highly farfetched to me. As a result, I can personally conclude that the notion of a "god" has as much credibility as that of the Aborginal dreamtime, greek gods or the gods of ancient egypt. A question to christians though: If an athiest person lead normal, good life without committing any sins or crimes, would that person have a place in heaven?

If you know you're wrong, there really is no point in me wasting my time to correct you.
Answer to your last question : no, an atheist who leads a normal (lol) 'good' life without committing crimes would not have a place in heaven.
However, if he had never sinned (impossible) he would.

 

[NCB619]

Exactly, whether you find believing in God is bad or not is irrelevant. If you're assuming he's bad, he can still exist which the thread is fundamentally about.

I just believe that Non-existence as a concept is flawed. Reiterating:

'Being in a state of non-existence means that non-existence exists which is a contradiction. Hence there is no such thing as non-existence. There is only a state of existence. Thus everything exists (including God)'
__________________

How does one create existence, if existence itself does not exist yet?

 

[fliick]

Oh yeah, beyond the fact that if you accept this proposition your willingly accepting the invitation to be a slave. A hand-crafted robot, destined for eternal pleasure or pain, every wince, every movement is not your own. God not only knows your inner most desires and fears, but he punishes you for even the most sinister of your thoughts: though it is all ultimately traceable back to his hands. This is an eternal, celestial dictatorship- an unescapable, detestable and malevolent totalitarian regime, and I for one stand up and say no!

I think you've read too many cult novels...
And the whole 'slave of a higher being' concept is hippo-critical. It's in society. Fuck, you're even a slave to your own desires, guilt etc. It doesn't matter if you put a white beard, a toga and the name "god" to it. You slave.

 

[ad infinitum]

I think you've read too many cult novels...
And the whole 'slave of a higher being' concept is hipocritical. It's in society. Fuck, you're even a slave to your own desires, guilt etc. It doesn't matter if you put a white beard, a toga and the name "god" to it. You slave.

It it quite clear that you don't know how to spell this word, nor do you know what this word means. As cookie rightly points out, the whole desire for a god- a 'father'- is really a desire to be a pet, to be a sheep, to have the thinking done for you. So please, delete or edit your muddled non-point before we all fall victim to another one of your 'thoughts'.

 

[ad infinitum]

Exactly, whether you find believing in God is bad or not is irrelevant. If you're assuming he's bad, he can still exist which the thread is fundamentally about.

I just believe that Non-existence as a concept is flawed. Reiterating:

'Being in a state of non-existence means that non-existence exists which is a contradiction. Hence there is no such thing as non-existence. There is only a state of existence. Thus everything exists (including God)'
__________________

Rolf therefore Zeus exists. Fairies exist. Baal exists. Allah exists.
I'm pretty sure this post of yours takes the prize of most retarded logic, most retarded post, most retarded thought ever to occur to anyone.
You got muddled up with your shitty word puzzle. Apologize for the laughter you have caused.

 

[_Zeus]

Rolf therefore Zeus exists. Fairies exist. Baal exists. Allah exists.
I'm pretty sure this post of yours takes the prize of most retarded logic, most retarded post, most retarded thought ever to occur to anyone.
You got muddled up with your shitty word puzzle. Apologize for the laughter you have caused.

Of course I exist.