How to prove God exists.

[Tetra]

If you prove God exists you remove any reason for faith. Do that and the entire religion falls apart.

That's how I came to know God... so I don't know if I agree.

For me, faith is more required in Christianity vs simply being a theist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They didn't have to. Because of the first 3000, were witnesses to the events that had happened.

They had the miracle of the resurrection and the beauty of the living Savior. That beats the awesomeness and beauty of the universe any day.

The universe will end someday. Christ will always be here.

The supposed 3,000 witnesses are only mentioned once in the Bible and nowhere else. That is not very compelling evidence at all. If the Koran mentioned that 3,000 people saw Mohammad fly to the Moon and back on the back of a horse and it was not mentioned anywhere else in history would you become a Muslim?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If God exist, why would that remove the reason for faith?

Faith in His existence would certainly go out the window. There would be no need for faith if you have proof.

My main point in this thread, which I didn't get to put into my first post is that you need to have the faith that God exists before you can start accepting evidence for God's existence. This is the part that trips us atheists up. We don't have faith in God's existence to begin with so when presented with "evidences" for His existence, we just plain don't see them as such.

I believe there is a psychological need to believe in God and put faith in his existence, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Once you put your faith that something is out there, you will start to see all kinds of evidence to confirm your belief.

That's just my two cents.

 

[Speedwell]

They didn't have to. Because of the first 3000, were witnesses to the events that had happened.

They had the miracle of the resurrection and the beauty of the living Savior. That beats the awesomeness and beauty of the universe any day.

The universe will end someday. Christ will always be here.

No doubt that is true

That's how I came to know God... so I don't know if I agree.

For me, faith is more required in Christianity vs simply being a theist.

And the attempts to reduce Christianity to rationality and science always seem to have a political motive.

 

[Tetra]

Faith in His existence would certainly go out the window. There would be no need for faith if you have proof.

My main point in this thread, which I didn't get to put into my first post is that you need to have the faith that God exists before you can start accepting evidence for God's existence. This is the part that trips us atheists up. We don't have faith in God's existence to begin with so when presented with "evidences" for His existence, we just plain don't see them as such.

I believe there is a psychological need to believe in God and put faith in his existence, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Once you put your faith that something is out there, you will start to see all kinds of evidence to confirm your belief.

That's just my two cents.

Again, I was an agnostic who became a theist purely based on reasoning God's existence. I really don't think faith in necessary for someone to make that shift.

No doubt that is true

And the attempts to reduce Christianity to rationality and science always seem to have a political motive.

That may or may not be the case, either way, I don't find Christianity and science to be at odds.

 

[smithed64]

The supposed 3,000 witnesses are only mentioned once in the Bible and nowhere else. That is not very compelling evidence at all. If the Koran mentioned that 3,000 people saw Mohammad fly to the Moon and back on the back of a horse and it was not mentioned anywhere else in history would you become a Muslim?

So it was mentioned once. Okay. I agree with that.

there were no witnesses to Mohammad taking the night journey as he claimed had happened in Surah 17.1
From what I've read there are some 21st Muslims believe it was a dream or a vision.
There were many skeptics when Mohammed recounted the details of his trip the morning after his night journey on the flying animal. As Dr. Rafat Amari points out in the introduction to "Islam: In Light of History", Abu Bakar (the first assistant of Mohammed who became his first Caliph) confirmed Mohammed's descriptions of the temple he had visited, because Abu Baker claimed he had once taken a journey to Jerusalem and had seen the temple himself, and remembered it to be just as Mohammed had described it.

There is, however, a little difficulty with their accounts. The temple had been torn down over 500 years before their claims of having made personal visits to it. Indeed if Mohammed had actually hitched his flying animal anywhere near where the temple had been, to the "ring" he suggested "the prophets" had hitched theirs, at the time in history that his night flight was supposed to have taken place, he would have found that the temple mount was being used as a garbage dump. The Muslim's own Caliph Omar would have observed this when he marched into Jerusalem in 639 AD, not many years after Mohammed offered his account detailed above.

So to answer your question. No.
Considering there was no 3000 witnesses to it.

 

[smithed64]

Faith in His existence would certainly go out the window. There would be no need for faith if you have proof.

My main point in this thread, which I didn't get to put into my first post is that you need to have the faith that God exists before you can start accepting evidence for God's existence. This is the part that trips us atheists up. We don't have faith in God's existence to begin with so when presented with "evidences" for His existence, we just plain don't see them as such.

I believe there is a psychological need to believe in God and put faith in his existence, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Once you put your faith that something is out there, you will start to see all kinds of evidence to confirm your belief.

That's just my two cents.

You ask the age old question faith before salvation or faith after. That's a good question.
I will get back to you on this tomorrow, if you don't mind.
But thanks for the two cents, it was worth it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it was mentioned once. Okay. I agree with that.

there were no witnesses to Mohammad taking the night journey as he claimed had happened in Surah 17.1
From what I've read there are some 21st Muslims believe it was a dream or a vision.
There were many skeptics when Mohammed recounted the details of his trip the morning after his night journey on the flying animal. As Dr. Rafat Amari points out in the introduction to "Islam: In Light of History", Abu Bakar (the first assistant of Mohammed who became his first Caliph) confirmed Mohammed's descriptions of the temple he had visited, because Abu Baker claimed he had once taken a journey to Jerusalem and had seen the temple himself, and remembered it to be just as Mohammed had described it.

There is, however, a little difficulty with their accounts. The temple had been torn down over 500 years before their claims of having made personal visits to it. Indeed if Mohammed had actually hitched his flying animal anywhere near where the temple had been, to the "ring" he suggested "the prophets" had hitched theirs, at the time in history that his night flight was supposed to have taken place, he would have found that the temple mount was being used as a garbage dump. The Muslim's own Caliph Omar would have observed this when he marched into Jerusalem in 639 AD, not many years after Mohammed offered his account detailed above.

So to answer your question. No.
Considering there was no 3000 witnesses to it.

You missed the point. In reality there were no 3000 witnesses to Jesus's resurrection either.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your reply, Quatona.

I am in this thread into an experiment to see whether folks who are atheists or in league with atheists, are really into hide and seek (which they are in fact), in their discussion on the existence of God.

Look, this already gives it away: You are claiming that you are trying to find out something which in the next moment you say you already know is a fact.

On another note, even if you succeed in exposing atheists as dishonest, poor in character, and all sorts of negative things - this won´t help proving your worldview correct, or the God of your preference existing. It´s just redundant for that task. (Which, to be honest, gives me the nagging suspicion, that it might actually be the main purpose of your threads, thinly veiled by empty promises).

The information of the concept of God is already most crucial in coming to the existence of God, that is why when you read writings by enemies of God's existence, search for any mention from their part of their information on the concept of God, and you will notice that they are playing hide and see, by blasphemously applying ridiculous descriptions to God, calling Him like as with Bertrand Russel, an orbiting teapot in space - I think he is the first to resort to this hide and seek trick to avoid altogether from giving his information, because he knows that from the correct information of God in concept, it is inevitable that he will come to the existence of God, conforming to the concept of God,

Ok, enough with all this poisoning the well, the ad hominems, and character assassination. Get to the point already. Remember, you named this thread "How to prove God exists", and not "Bashing atheists". The latter isn´t helpful with the first.

"In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."​

It´s now the third time I am telling you: I accept this your definitions for purposes of these discussion.
Everytime I have done this first step, you went back to long-winded introductions, the another measure of atheist-bashing, and finally presented - again - your definition.
Is this going anywhere, or do you want to play "broken record" with me?​

Russell calls God an orbiting teapot in space, nowadays atheists call God a flying spaghetti monster, etc., all of which exposes them to be into bad faith playing themselves to be irrational and un-intelligent, by which they could avail of the defense from ignorance for not accepting God's existence.

Is this a subform of Tourette´s? Is this atheist bashing compulsory?
Your definition has been accepted for purposes of this discussion. What now?

But it is not ignorance but insanity, i.e., they seek to show themselves insane, wherefore they are 'faultless'.

Yeah, ok, got it. You don´t like atheists. Can we move on to the proof you keep promising?

So, how to prove the existence of God?

Like this:

1. Get to know the correct information on the concept of God.

Yes, for crying out loud. We have been there already, four times.

2. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?
What do you say, Quatona?

Honestly?
Sounds like a pompous tautology, to me.
(If you´d spend just a fraction of the care that you spend on smearing atheists on formulating your key-premises, that might be quite helpful.)
As far as I am concerned, I would shorten this to: "Something is real when it exists.". I have no idea what a "default status" could be, in this context. Things only exist when they exist. When they don´t exist they are not "not in the default status of things" - they aren´t things, they don´t exist, they aren´t real. Being real isn´t the "default status" of things. It´s the only status. Or else they aren´t things. Non-existence isn´t a status of things, either.
Existence is the reference frame for all our considerations. It´s not a property of things, or something.
So you may want to explain what prompts you to inflate a triviality to this unpalatable world salad.

Dear Quatona, I like very much to have a sustained exchange with you, on the present trend I am developing, namely, how to prove God exists, step by step.

As far as I am concerned, I can´t promise that I am able to fight myself through these endless attacks on atheists and atheism before you even attempt to make the next step, time and again. So, if you see any possibility to cut out these annoying irrelevancies in the future, I would very much appreciate that.

 

[smithed64]

You missed the point. In reality there were no 3000 witnesses to Jesus's resurrection either.

And you know this how?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you know this how?

Because there is no more valid reason to believe that there were 3,000 witnesses of Jesus 's resurrection than there is to believe that there were 3,000 witnesses to Mohammad's trip. The only mention of these witnesses occurred over one thosand miles away fromwhere this event supposedly happened. In Israel there is no mention of these witnesses. One wouldthink that if it happened the locals would have known best.

 

[Chriliman]

Thanks for your reply, Quatona.

I am in this thread into an experiment to see whether folks who are atheists or in league with atheists, are really into hide and seek (which they are in fact), in their discussion on the existence of God.

The information of the concept of God is already most crucial in coming to the existence of God, that is why when you read writings by enemies of God's existence, search for any mention from their part of their information on the concept of God, and you will notice that they are playing hide and see, by blasphemously applying ridiculous descriptions to God, calling Him like as with Bertrand Russel, an orbiting teapot in space - I think he is the first to resort to this hide and seek trick to avoid altogether from giving his information, because he knows that from the correct information of God in concept, it is inevitable that he will come to the existence of God, conforming to the concept of God, namely:

"In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."​

Russell calls God an orbiting teapot in space, nowadays atheists call God a flying spaghetti monster, etc., all of which exposes them to be into bad faith playing themselves to be irrational and un-intelligent, by which they could avail of the defense from ignorance for not accepting God's existence.

But it is not ignorance but insanity, i.e., they seek to show themselves insane, wherefore they are 'faultless'.

So, how to prove the existence of God?

Like this:

1. Get to know the correct information on the concept of God.

And then?

What about in step No. 2. accepting this statement:

2. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?

What do you say, Quatona?

Dear Quatona, I like very much to have a sustained exchange with you, on the present trend I am developing, namely, how to prove God exists, step by step.


[ Note to operators of the forum: Please just merge this 'new thread' into the most appropriate current thread(s) from me, or see if you can put them three threads under just one thread. I should have just made what I call a new topic as the title of a new post from myself. Sorry for the trouble. ]

Do you call Jesus your Lord and Savior?

No one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ and no comes to Jesus Christ unless the Father draws him.

Your method of proving God to someone(Quatona in this case) seems to ignore that teaching, which is concerning.

The love of God is what draws people to Himself, not hollow attempts at proving God.

 

[smithed64]

Because there is no more valid reason to believe that there were 3,000 witnesses of Jesus 's resurrection than there is to believe that there were 3,000 witnesses to Mohammad's trip. The only mention of these witnesses occurred over one thosand miles away fromwhere this event supposedly happened. In Israel there is no mention of these witnesses. One wouldthink that if it happened the locals would have known best.

The mentioning of the 3000 is here:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptised: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Not all of them were one thousand miles away.
Because He was speaking to the men of Israel.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

The Apostles didn't leave Jerusalem until after this day happened. The Promised day that was prophesied in Joel. They were told not to leave Jerusalem.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Spoiler: Promise

John 14:16-26 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Prohecy:
Joel 2:28-32

The Locals did know. Because He was speaking to the Locals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mentioning of the 3000 is here:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptised: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Not all of them were one thousand miles away.
Because He was speaking to the men of Israel.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

The Apostles didn't leave Jerusalem until after this day happened. The Promised day that was prophesied in Joel. They were told not to leave Jerusalem.

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Spoiler: Promise

John 14:16-26 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Prohecy:
Joel 2:28-32

The Locals did know. Because He was speaking to the Locals.

Sorry, but the author of Acts was definitely not preaching to the locals. First you must remember that Acts was writtne in Greek for a illiterate Greek speaking audience. He was a follower of Paul, another nonwitness that ended up in Rome. He was not writing for the typical Jews in Israel.

And rereferring to the story in doubt as evidence only shows that you do not have any.

 

[Speedwell]

The love of God is what draws people to Himself, not hollow attempts at proving God.

Amen!

 

[smithed64]

Sorry, but the author of Acts was definitely not preaching to the locals. First you must remember that Acts was writtne in Greek for a illiterate Greek speaking audience. He was a follower of Paul, another nonwitness that ended up in Rome. He was not writing for the typical Jews in Israel.

And rereferring to the story in doubt as evidence only shows that you do not have any.

You are right the Author of Acts wasn't preaching.
It was Peter who was preaching.

If it was written for illiterate? then how did they read it.

Acts were written by Luke. Yeah, he was a follower of Paul, but He also followed the other Apostles.

Acts end abruptly with Paul imprisoned in Rome, waiting to bring his appeal before Caesar. It is worth noting that in this history of the early Christian church, Luke mentioned neither Paul’s death (AD 64–68) nor the persecution of Christians that broke out under Nero (AD 64). More than likely, Luke completed the book before either of these events occurred, sometime between AD 60 and AD 62, while Paul sat in prison, awaiting the resolution of his appeal.

It is your opinion that the story is in doubt.
I don't doubt it, and I've many friends that don't doubt it, a mix of secular and Christian friends. So I would say your opinions are not in the majority. Not because of my friends and all that, Because of the amount of Christians around today. Pretty sure they don't doubt it.

That doesn't mean that there aren't those out there who doubt it. And the amount who do doubt it doesn't make it wrong. Nor does the amount of who do not doubt it make it right.

The History and the stories of it, stand on its own. As does God's Word stand on it's own merits and truths.

 

[Strathos]

So what you're saying is that before claiming that God does or does not exist, you must define God? I thought that was obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are right the Author of Acts wasn't preaching.
It was Peter who was preaching.

Nope, the author of Luke/Acts seems to have been a follower of Paul not Peter.

If it was written for illiterate? then how did they read it.

Never said that or implied that. In fact I said the opposite. It was written for a literate Greek reading group. That was not your typical Israelite.

Acts were written by Luke. Yeah, he was a follower of Paul, but He also followed the other Apostles.

Possibly written by Luke. The authorship is not certain. And still no reason given to believe the "3,000 witnesses" claim.

Acts end abruptly with Paul imprisoned in Rome, waiting to bring his appeal before Caesar. It is worth noting that in this history of the early Christian church, Luke mentioned neither Paul’s death (AD 64–68) nor the persecution of Christians that broke out under Nero (AD 64). More than likely, Luke completed the book before either of these events occurred, sometime between AD 60 and AD 62, while Paul sat in prison, awaiting the resolution of his appeal.

Possibly.

It is your opinion that the story is in doubt.
I don't doubt it, and I've many friends that don't doubt it, a mix of secular and Christian friends. So I would say your opinions are not in the majority. Not because of my friends and all that, Because of the amount of Christians around today. Pretty sure they don't doubt it.

No, it is not just my opinion. It is no more valid than if you saw the same claim in the Koran. A point that you did not seem to understand. And the number of Christians that follow a false belief is not evidence either.

That doesn't mean that there aren't those out there who doubt it. And the amount who do doubt it doesn't make it wrong. Nor does the amount of who do not doubt it make it right.

Correct, the amount doubting a dubious story does not make it false.

The History and the stories of it, stand on its own. As does God's Word stand on it's own merits and truths.

So you are admitting that is is probably not true? At least that is what it seems that you are saying. And calling the Bible "God's Word" is highly blasphemous. I would not do that.

 

[Gene2memE]

Thanks for your reply, Quatona.

I am in this thread into an experiment to see whether folks who are atheists or in league with atheists, are really into hide and seek (which they are in fact), in their discussion on the existence of God.

Amazing. You can apparently read minds. Or at least the minds of atheists.

Tell me what I think about the standard of your arguments.

The information of the concept of God is already most crucial in coming to the existence of God,

Atheism is a reaction to the claim of theists that "some deity exists". Thus, it can only react to the particular God concept being forwarded by believers.

that is why when you read writings by enemies of God's existence,

Existence is (mostly) a binary question. Yes, something exists. Or, no, something does not exist.

search for any mention from their part of their information on the concept of God, and you will notice that they are playing hide and see, by blasphemously applying ridiculous descriptions to God, calling Him like as with Bertrand Russel, an orbiting teapot in space -

You've completely mis-understood Russell's teapot

Russel is using an argument from analogy to point out how unfalsifiable claims are useless in debate and that the person making the claim also has the burden of proof to support their claim.

I think he is the first to resort to this hide and seek trick to avoid altogether from giving his information, because he knows that from the correct information of God in concept, it is inevitable that he will come to the existence of God, conforming to the concept of God, namely:

"In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."​

​

Might I suggest Russell's 'Why I Am Not a Christian' to you - in which he specifically addresses, and rejects, your first cause argument. Its the first argument that he deals with.

Russell calls God an orbiting teapot in space, nowadays atheists call God a flying spaghetti monster, etc., all of which exposes them to be into bad faith playing themselves to be irrational and un-intelligent, by which they could avail of the defense from ignorance for not accepting God's existence.

Russell's Teapot is an analogy
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is satire and a parody religion, in particular of the special pleading of the US flavour of creationists and biblical literalist and again, the shifting of the burden of proof.

So, how to prove the existence of God?

Like this:

1. Get to know the correct information on the concept of God.

What, in your estimation, are the characteristics the form the concept of God?

What about in step No. 2. accepting this statement:

2. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence?

I can't make sense of it, so I don't see why I should accept it. It appears to be a non sequitur.

 

[Quasiblogo]

I believe the IS-ness of God is not the same as existence. We exist but God is beyond that. He is simply the Being Who Is. He Is, even before creation.

When we ask if God exists, I think we are really asking if there is a pre-Creation God. Now that, we cannot prove on our own. We can only look to the human records to see if there is an account that ties pre-Creation to the material, that credibly explains the human condition and how God could have intervened in it, and for signs that He still does and will continue to do so.

To my great satisfaction, the record of God's involvement with Abraham, Israel, Jesus and now the Church (for believing Jews and non-Jews) holds the key.