Proof that God exists?

[Lord Emsworth]

You are correct. My immaterial mind cannot create something from nothing.

In this we agree.

Why, because I am not God.

Aha. So quickly the excuses come. Immaterial minds can create stuff from nothing without any further input. But not this one here, as it is insufficient. Not even a living flower.

But "somewhere" there is some immaterial mind much more capable that can produce stuff. And not just measly flowers. But whole universes.


How again do we know that immaterial minds are capable of creating stuff? Oh, I forgot we don't know that.

But, hey, don't let me keep you from tossing out this immaterial mind as an explanation for the existence of the universe (along with its living flowers) in the same fashion that you toss out "naturalistic" explanations. Agnostic you should be.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

If what scientists ever try to convince us is contradictory to this truth, then it is a lie, and why would anyone want to believe a lie?

A moment ago you said that the reason people do not find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life convincing is because scientists have not been able to demonstrate a working experimental model. But even if they did, you would reject it. That being the case please don't pretend that the reason for your rejection of a naturalistic explanation is based on the lack of relevant evidence; you've just admitted that even if the relevant evidence were there, you'd reject it.

 

[Musicc]

People believe in god because this world is so complex ... so complex that it is hard to imagine the world forming and changing and evolving into new forms by itself. Not saying this by itself is proof of god, but it is understandable.

 

[dlamberth]

Intuition is not an argument.

Exactly...Except for the person having those spiritual experiences of the Divine. But to use a person's own spiritual experiences as the bases of an argument with others is just plain silly.

.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are right Mark, it is a relationship in which Christ communes with me and I with Him.

Christ is risen, He is not in the grave. This relationship is supernatural and I do not expect you to accept it or even understand it.

These platitudes are more appropriate for someguy14.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

People believe in god because this world is so complex ... so complex that it is hard to imagine the world forming and changing and evolving into new forms by itself. Not saying this by itself is proof of god, but it is understandable.

Well, it depends. If you define God in a more ostensible fashion then what you said is clearly an understatement. You can always point and say that the universe(!) "forming and changing and evolving into new forms" is God. At worst somebody could quibble with your word choice. But you can't say it does't exist.


If on the other hand you are trying to sell God as personal entity with mind and so on, then I am afraid you'll have to explain how this works with the world(!) "forming and changing and evolving into new forms by itself"*. (*God is part of the world, i.e. the sum total of everything that exists. Ergo, even with God the world doing stuff by itself.)

Interestingly, it is fairly popular to point out that we can't ever expect to fully understand and imagine God. So, we have this complex world and with or without God "in" it we can't imagine how the world forms and changes and evolves by itself? Hmmm ...

 

[Elioenai26]

Aha. So quickly the excuses come. Immaterial minds can create stuff from nothing without any further input. But not this one here, as it is insufficient. Not even a living flower.

But "somewhere" there is some immaterial mind much more capable that can produce stuff. And not just measly flowers. But whole universes.


How again do we know that immaterial minds are capable of creating stuff? Oh, I forgot we don't know that.

But, hey, don't let me keep you from tossing out this immaterial mind as an explanation for the existence of the universe (along with its living flowers) in the same fashion that you toss out "naturalistic" explanations. Agnostic you should be.

I know God created the universe. This is not a guess, this is not speculation, this is not a theory. I am a Christian.

For me to say that I am an agnostic would be for me to lie. What could I accomplish by that?

 

[Elioenai26]

These platitudes are more appropriate for someguy14.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No platitude, just simple truth.

 

[Elioenai26]

A moment ago you said that the reason people do not find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life convincing is because scientists have not been able to demonstrate a working experimental model. But even if they did, you would reject it. That being the case please don't pretend that the reason for your rejection of a naturalistic explanation is based on the lack of relevant evidence; you've just admitted that even if the relevant evidence were there, you'd reject it.

You are incorrect. I did not say that.

I said that if scientists come to a conclusion that is contradictory to what God has revealed to us concerning the matter, then I will not accept it because it is a lie.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No platitude, just simple truth.

No, simple evasion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Skavau]

You are incorrect. I did not say that.

I said that if scientists come to a conclusion that is contradictory to what God has revealed to us concerning the matter, then I will not accept it because it is a lie.

So why do you expect us to be convinced by anything you say?

 

[quatona]

Elioenai finally and thankfully showing his true colours. Not that this really comes as a surprise....

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I know God created the universe. This is not a guess, this is not speculation, this is not a theory.

You are right. It is not a guess, it is not speculation, it is not a theory. It is just talk.

I am a Christian.

For me to say that I am an agnostic would be for me to lie. What could I accomplish by that?

Ugh, I don't know.

 

[trientje]

I'm glad to hear you understand that you cannot prove God's existence.

This is a start.

Gee, I'm glad you approve. My concern is nonbelievers and agnostics taking scripture out of context and using it to make claims. I have posted works on this site explaining things like slavery in the old testament in hopes that they would be read so we can open up a discussion on certain topics. But to study scripture in context is never utilized by nonbelievers. They seem content to just continue taking verse out of context. Whats up with that? It almost leads me to believe that atheists just want to argue and do not want to come together to reason with others.

 

[Davian]

You are right Mark, it is a relationship in which Christ communes with me and I with Him.

Christ is risen, He is not in the grave. This relationship is supernatural and I do not expect you to accept it or even understand it.

I think I am beginning to understand it. Why you believe and and why you make these claims is addressed by science:

Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The evolutionary psychology of religion is the study of religious belief using evolutionary psychology principles. It is one approach to the psychology of religion. As with all other organs and organ functions, the brain and cognition's functional structure have been argued to have a genetic basis, and are therefore subject to the effects of natural selection and evolution. Like other organs and tissues, this functional structure should be universally shared amongst humans and should solve important problems of survival and reproduction. Evolutionary psychologists seek to understand cognitive processes, religion in this case, by understanding the survival and reproductive functions they might serve."

Religion is a product, or byproduct, of evolution.

 

[Davian]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

If what scientists ever try to convince us is contradictory to this truth, then it is a lie, and why would anyone want to believe a lie?

...

I said that if scientists come to a conclusion that is contradictory to what God has revealed to us concerning the matter, then I will not accept it because it is a lie.

In many posts you have been promoting the big bang theory. How is this not contradictory with the genesis stories in your bible? Did the writers of the bible get the details right, or did they not?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In many posts you have been promoting the big bang theory. How is this not contradictory with the genesis stories in your bible? Did the writers of the bible get the details right, or did they not?

That makes me to ask how he views Evolution:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7643756/
The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths

Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories: in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years. That's not the point, though. I got curious as to what prompted their authors (the British gentleman and the Belgian priest) to come up with their ideas - what inspired them - what were the conceptual building blocks, so to speak, of their hypotheses? I thought about it for a while, and came to some pretty amazing conclusions. That's when I decided to make a videostory about it.

I titled it The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths. Find it on YouTube.

Another term I resent is Christian literature - well, not the term itself, but what most people today seem to imply when they use it (including some publishers of the same). In my view, Christian literature is not a collection of "highly moral," "educational," "inspiring" (in the educational sense) stories dumbed down for "the masses" whose purpose is to reassure the reader and improve his or her spiritual self-awareness - nothing selfish like that. Christian literature, in my view, is simply literature written by authors whose view of their neighbor, the Universe, and God is unmistakably Christian. Alexandre Dumas, the author of The Three Musketeers, is obviously a Christian writer despite his shortcomings, real or perceived; and Kurt Vonnegut, I'm sorry to report, isn't (even though I like him a lot).

Well, there it is, as Emperor Hadrian used to say.

 

[Davian]

That makes me to ask how he views Evolution:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7643756/
The Big Bang, Evolution, and other Myths

...
Neither the Big Bang theory nor the Theory of Evolution are really theories:

A beginner mistake right out of the box.

in order to obtain empirical data to support them, you'd have to have a time machine and be able to live for a few million years. That's not the point, though. I got curious as to what prompted their authors (the British gentleman and the Belgian priest) to come up with their ideas - what inspired them - what were the conceptual building blocks, so to speak, of their hypotheses? <snip>

I won't bother with the video, as I know how they came up with their hypotheses, which were later developed by others into scientific theories: empirical data. We can still observe the universe expanding, and we do have a 'time machine' - we can look back billions of years with the use of telescopes, here on earth or in space. We look into our DNA, and see evidence of common ancestry, our past. The theories best explain the data.

Elioenai26 is the one who is bringing the genesis stories up; he also shows a predilection for dichotomies. Did the bible writers get the details right, or were they wrong?

 

[Tiberius]

I don't believe any "beliefs" about God are accurate, including mine. But I don't see that as having anything to do with having God as one's reality.

So if you can't be sure that your beliefs about God are accurate, why do you believe in him? After all, couldn't it be that the in accurate part about your belief in God is the belief he exists?

 

[Tiberius]

People believe in god because this world is so complex ... so complex that it is hard to imagine the world forming and changing and evolving into new forms by itself. Not saying this by itself is proof of god, but it is understandable.

However, this leads us to a problem. Either a complex thing (such as the world) requires a MORE complex thing (such as a god) to create it or not. If a more complex creator is required, then this more complex creator can only come from another even more complex creator than itself!

But if complex things can come from things that aren't complex, then why do we need God?