100%, absolute, irrefutable proof of God's existence

[JackRT]

Faith is a positive and certainty is a positive. Therefore, faith cannot be the opposite of certainty.

Your logic is perfect but I question your postulate.

 

[fwGod]

Your logic is perfect but I question your postulate.

Please elaborate.

 

[JackRT]

Please elaborate.

I question that faith, particularly blind faith, is a positive.

 

[Toro]

 

[childeye 2]

Ok so you're saying there's not much point in referring to faith in God if it's just a matter of saying a God exists?

That's rather succinct. So long as the sentiment is God has to exist if one understands the term God, so faith is not about believing God exists but rather that God is trustworthy.

My peeve is the misconceptions of the term God as pertains to reasoning and the misconceptions of the term faith as pertains to reasoning.

 

[childeye 2]

I question that faith, particularly blind faith, is a positive.

Well said. For scripture says faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

It does not say it is the substance of things dreaded. Hence it is not a blind faith. However hope is a positive which some are referring to here and the semantics can cause confusion.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

My problem with that is we postulate a God that can't be physically sensed or measured whose very existence cannot be proven but has always existed and yet we say that God created everything physical. And then we say that our physical universe which can be sensed and measured owes its existence to this hypothetical God. Why can't the universe itself have always existed?

There aren't that many options:
#1. Everything in this universe has existed forever (existed forever even if in some kind of pre-singularity inflatory state)
#2. Everything in this universe has not existed forever but came into being from somewhere else such as:
#2a. Another universe
#2b. Another dimension

There is no theoretical reason to favour any of these over any other as far as I know. There is no reason to dismiss any of these as viable possibilities either. Thus there is nothing wrong with a willingness to favour one option due to personal bias or because it fits in with ones personal beliefs.

 

[childeye 2]

My problem with that is we postulate a God that can't be physically sensed or measured whose very existence cannot be proven but has always existed and yet we say that God created everything physical. And then we say that our physical universe which can be sensed and measured owes its existence to this hypothetical God. Why can't the universe itself have always existed?

If the universe is Eternal then it's God. Albert Einstein set out to prove that the universe is eternal and ended up convinced it had to have had a beginning in some reasonable meaning of the term. I'm no physicist but I believe he equated the unfolding of the universe as time. Hence the faster you travel in space, time slows down.

 

[childeye 2]

There aren't that many options:
#1. Everything in this universe has existed forever (existed forever even if in some kind of pre-singularity inflatory state)
#2. Everything in this universe has not existed forever but came into being from somewhere else such as:
#2a. Another universe
#2b. Another dimension

There is no theoretical reason to favour any of these over any other as far as I know. There is no reason to dismiss any of these as viable possibilities either. Thus there is nothing wrong with a willingness to favour one option due to personal bias or because it fits in with ones personal beliefs.

Or just be honest and say I don't know.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Jesus drew me to him to a large extent through the study of geocentrism.

Perhaps the leading exponent of geocentrism is Catholic Bob Sungenis, who's mighty 3 volume tome entitled 'Galileo was Wrong' is now in maybe its 12th edition. I highly recommend reading it, as it covers a wealth of mainstream physics and cosmology (including the Planck data). The website is here: Galileo Was Wrong. They've also released documentaries such as 'The Principle', (also discussing Planck among others). Trailer and link to site here:

Despite the many attempts to demonstrate that the Earth moves in space (should be easy!), it has never been proven by either observation or experiment. We are at the center of it all. Praise God!

 

[childeye 2]

Jesus drew me to him to a large extent through the study of geocentrism.

Perhaps the leading exponent of geocentrism is Catholic Bob Sungenis, who's mighty 3 volume tome entitled 'Galileo was Wrong' is now in maybe its 12th edition. I highly recommend reading it, as it covers a wealth of mainstream physics and cosmology (including the Planck data). The website is here: Galileo Was Wrong. They've also released documentaries such as 'The Principle', (also discussing Planck among others). Trailer and link to site here:

Despite the many attempts to demonstrate that the Earth moves in space (should be easy!), it has never been proven by either observation or experiment. We are at the center of it all. Praise God!

Now what are the chances that the earth is at the center?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Now what are the chances that the earth is at the center?

Well God doesn't take chances. He knows the tav from the aleph.

 

[childeye 2]

Well God doesn't take chances. He knows the tav from the aleph.

What is in between would be a revelation of Who He is.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

What is in between would be a revelation of Who He is when expressing His thought.

When scripture gives us scores of unequivocal teachings that the earth is immovable and none that are remotely consistent with heliocentrism, that's cause for absolute faith. Or do ye doubt, according to the teachings of man?

 

[childeye 2]

When scripture gives us scores of unequivocal teachings that the earth is immovable and none that are remotely consistent with heliocentrism, that's cause for absolute faith. Or do ye doubt, according to the teachings of man?

Respectfully, I only care to understand the cause and purpose for creation.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Respectfully, I only care to understand the cause and purpose for creation.

If you misunderstand creation, could you also misunderstand the creator?

If we speak of earthly things and ye believe not, how then will ye believe when we speak of heavenly things?

 

[childeye 2]

If you misunderstand creation, could you also misunderstand the creator?

I only understand He's trustworthy whatever He does.

If we speak of earthly things and ye believe not, how then will ye believe when we speak of heavenly things?

The term believe means "trust".

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The term believe means "trust".

Ok.

I only understand He's trustworthy whatever He does.

So when He tells us that:

He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. (Ps 104:5); and puts Eyov in his place with:

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. (Job 38:4); and when He helped out Joshua:

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.", then-

Do you trust what He's saying is true?

 

[childeye 2]

Ok.



So when He tells us that:

He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. (Ps 104:5); and puts Eyov in his place with:

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. (Job 38:4); and when He helped out Joshua:

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon.", then-

Do you trust what He's saying is true?

I trust what He says because He's trustworthy. But I don't know what He means exactly when He says He established the earth upon it's foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever. Totter doesn't sound very good (as in unstable). I understand the sentiments behind His words as don't think you know a lot. As for Joshua and the sun standing still, I figure if God can make a universe, it's not logical to believe He can't stop the sun or make time stand still.

 

[fwGod]

I question that faith, particularly blind faith, is a positive.

Who said that faith is blind?.. it's the natural eye that can't see and is therefore blind.

Faith is positive because it sees what the eye can't see. What the eye can't see, when the eye can't see, the heart is in doubt. Just like doubting Thomas. But Jesus said "blessed are those who do not see and yet believe."

A doubt says "no". A blessing says "yes".

How can you have used faith to believe the gospel and be saved.. and yet think that the positive faith is blind?