Proof of God

[Paradigmaster]

Ooooookay... Here goes nothing!

I Know that there is no such thing as a 100% Proof of God, because by His loving relationship with us, he gives us a choice to ignore Him. If we had no choice in the matter, we'd have a tendency to do things out of fear, rather than out of Faith, Hope, and Love. Keeping this in mind I want to have a little fun with this, and just check out how this goes :

There are many accepted "proofs" for believers about God, (ie St Thomas Aquinas' "Five"). I would like to start one based on the given: "I exist." refering to you, the reader.

My goal is to be able to watch the steps of the proofs develop over the posts, but if this doesnt work out, oh well. The fact that no one can disprove to me that I exist has always seemed like a solid foundation for a "proof" of God, but I have never taken a philosphy or logic course, so i havent been able to do it.

SO:

1. I think
2. therefore i exist.



Good luck! 1 Cor 13:13

 

[HazyRigby]

The fact that no one can disprove to me that I exist has always seemed like a solid foundation for a "proof" of God...

First of all, this is illogical. Inability to prove something doesn't exist does not constitute proof of its existence. To quote an often repeated argument, you can't prove to me that magic unicorns don't exist (try it). Therefore, they must exist...?

Secondly, I CAN prove that you exist. If I were in the same room with you, I could see you, touch you, and hear you. I can see you pick up and object and watch the object move as you exert force on it. I can observe your existence through various medical means--I can listen to your heartbeat. I can monitor your breath using machines. I can also take a picture of you. I notice that nothing else takes up the same space as you do. Can any of these things be said of God? Nope.

 

[Duane Morse]

Unless you are in a Matrix isolation chamber or the equivalent whatever.
Then you could not prove his existance. Well, maybe his virtual existance.
Maybe we are all just figments in a giant imagination somewhere.
Maybe we are all in our own little world, and so can not actually see, touch, or otherwise influence anything or anyone outside of our own imagination.

Can God prove Gods existance to you?
And what sort of evidence would constitute proof of God, even by God, that would not require some amount of faith for the believing?

 

[cthoma11]

I'm an engineer, not a philosopher, but I'm not going to let that stop me from responding  So here goes.

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Unless you are in a Matrix isolation chamber or the equivalent whatever.
Then you could not prove his existance. Well, maybe his virtual existance.
Maybe we are all just figments in a giant imagination somewhere.
Maybe we are all in our own little world, and so can not actually see, touch, or otherwise influence anything or anyone outside of our own imagination.

These are indeed possibilities, but unless more (any) evidence to believe that one of them is a likely possibility, why should we believe it over our current view of reality?

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Can God prove Gods existance to you?
And what sort of evidence would constitute proof of God, even by God, that would not require some amount of faith for the believing?

I believe God can prove his existence to me and that he has done so through his Holy Spirit. However, a non-Christian is not going to accept that as proof.

The best argument which I have seen and one which could be used with a non-Christian is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

I believe the cause of the Universe is God and that he is the personal God of the bible. 

I will not go into the rational for the argument, philosophers can do a much better job than I ever could. I would recommend the book Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig for this.  I believe that the assertions for the argument are better than any of the points raised against it.

Regards,

Clinton

Note Added Aug 22. There is an on line presentation of the philosophical arguments for the above at http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm

 

[Duane Morse]

Clinton, I fully agree with you.
I was asking any non-believers what type of evidence they would accept that would not require some amount of faith for the believing.

I am always confronted with - prove it in a way the requires no faith, since the part that requires faith is the part you do not fully understand. And if there is not physical evidence to study there is no way to prove it.

Of course, they do not see the hypocracy in that with their own beliefs in the natural world that are all based on some unprovable thing like the speed of light or pi. Or life coming from the lifeless.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

The thing about the existence of the supernatural is that all logic is against it. For example (and this has been used a lot), why, if there is a loving and benevolent (not to mention omnipotent) deity watching over us, why do we suffer? This deity could, if it loved and cared for us, get rid of all pain-causing situations, or anything that could cause any pain in any imaginable (or unimaginable) way. So, the answer is that this deity is either malevolent, uncaring, or nonexistent.

 

[Duane Morse]

Or you do not understand why it is necessary, in the progression of Life, to go through these things in this way.
But if God is a loving and benevolent (not to mention omnipotent) deity watching over us, and these things such as pain and suffering are here, then there is a very good reason why God makes us go through it.
Even if it not understood by us here and now as we are going through it.
But the Bible does say that all pain and tears will be wiped away in the future world known as heaven, if we are faithful in the here and now to follow Gods ways.

And if God is malevolent, uncaring, or nonexistent, then we are in big trouble. Because then this is all there is to Life. and things are getting worse as time goes on. We will go on killing one another until there is no one left because we can not agree on anything. Because ultimately, whatever is not agreed on is fought over.

 

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
The thing about the existence of the supernatural is that all logic is against it. For example (and this has been used a lot), why, if there is a loving and benevolent (not to mention omnipotent) deity watching over us, why do we suffer? This deity could, if it loved and cared for us, get rid of all pain-causing situations, or anything that could cause any pain in any imaginable (or unimaginable) way. So, the answer is that this deity is either malevolent, uncaring, or nonexistent.

Further to Duane's post that your last sentence is invalid because it misses an important possibility.

In your first sentence about the existence of a supernatural having "...all logic against it" in no way follows from your example. Your say the 3 choices are malevolent, uncaring, or nonexistent and Duane correctly added caring, but beyond our knowledge to fully understand the reasons for suffering. So there are four possibilities, three of which argue for the existence of God. Therefore your logic in no way argues against God's existence.

I would challenge you to read the paper I linked in post number 4. Using straight forward and valid logic, it clearly proves the existence as opposed to the non-existence of God. Once this is understood, you can start looking into the nature of God, and the reasons the world is like it is.


Regards,

Clinton

 

[foolsparade]

well for me to believe in the supernatural I would need to see it with my own eyes, or watch it on CNN. Or Hardball with Chris Matthews. Even if it were true that your Christian God was real I would not be a follower and would reject this deity, purely for ethical reasons I suppose. In my opinion there is more of a chance of a divine creator than the God of the bible. It seems the bible is its own worst enemy.

 

[Hector Medina]

It took something glorious to create the sky,ocean,trees,air,animals,etc.....etc.....etc.....

Somehting beyond physical limitations:

!!!GOD!!!



Sinc.

-Hector

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
The thing about the existence of the supernatural is that all logic is against it. For example (and this has been used a lot), why, if there is a loving and benevolent (not to mention omnipotent) deity watching over us, why do we suffer? This deity could, if it loved and cared for us, get rid of all pain-causing situations, or anything that could cause any pain in any imaginable (or unimaginable) way. So, the answer is that this deity is either malevolent, uncaring, or nonexistent.

You made a huge leap in logic. You need to ask yourself several other questions before you can come to the conclusion you reached above. First, by what standard are you measuring what you like or don't like about life that you can logically conclude that life doesn't meet this standard?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Paradigmaster
1. I think
2. therefore i exist.

Descartes walks into a bar with some friends and they all sit down at a table.

The bartender walks over and says, "What'll you have?

Descartes says, "I'll have a beer."

The bartender says, "We're all out of beer. You want a whiskey?"

Descartes says, "Hmmm... I think not." And he disappears.

 

[Lanakila]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
The thing about the existence of the supernatural is that all logic is against it. For example (and this has been used a lot), why, if there is a loving and benevolent (not to mention omnipotent) deity watching over us, why do we suffer? This deity could, if it loved and cared for us, get rid of all pain-causing situations, or anything that could cause any pain in any imaginable (or unimaginable) way. So, the answer is that this deity is either malevolent, uncaring, or nonexistent.

All logic is not against the existence of God, in fact quite the opposite is true. Just because there isn't empirical evidence for God, and the rational (Logic) evidence hasn't convinced you yet, does not mean it doesn't exist. This is a good website with a logical explanation of the existence of God, that I hope with make you think. The article is more along the lines of the creation/evolution debate then most of the posts in this thread too, LOL.  http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html

 

[Received]

well for me to believe in the supernatural I would need to see it with my own eyes, or watch it on CNN. Or Hardball with Chris Matthews. Even if it were true that your Christian God was real I would not be a follower and would reject this deity, purely for ethical reasons I suppose. In my opinion there is more of a chance of a divine creator than the God of the bible. It seems the bible is its own worst enemy.

If the bible were its own worst enemy, then those who do indeed read it would realize the fact. Reading the conversion of St. Augustine by the words of Paul never lead anyone to contradiction. Also, scientific fact does not go against the Bible. Theory, on the other hand, certainly does. There is perfect validity behind this point: to have theory you must have, to a degree, assumption.

You testimony also goes perfectly with my observation. It isn't that people choose atheism because it is illogical, but rather, they have incorrect and degraded views of the supposed theism that places itself in religion and would rather choose what they cannot logically accept. Can I be the first to tell you that your views on religion are out of whack? And they quite rightly are not your fault. I can think of many reasons why, of which faulty bible translation and hypocritical Christians are included as the kings of the hill of deception.

Also, when we start with subjects we are not familiar with, do we not take them one step at a time? Is it really that silly a thought to get some people to realize their fallicious logic in naturalism and become Deists, and then work their way from there?

blessings,

John

 

[chickenman]

what fallacious logic in naturalism?

 

[Received]

nothing times nobody equals everything.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.origins.org/real/ri9403/evidence.html

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by Paradigmaster
Ooooookay... Here goes nothing!

I Know that there is no such thing as a 100% Proof of God, because by His loving relationship with us, he gives us a choice to ignore Him. If we had no choice in the matter, we'd have a tendency to do things out of fear, rather than out of Faith, Hope, and Love. Keeping this in mind I want to have a little fun with this, and just check out how this goes :

There are many accepted "proofs" for believers about God, (ie St Thomas Aquinas' "Five"). I would like to start one based on the given: "I exist." refering to you, the reader.

My goal is to be able to watch the steps of the proofs develop over the posts, but if this doesnt work out, oh well. The fact that no one can disprove to me that I exist has always seemed like a solid foundation for a "proof" of God, but I have never taken a philosphy or logic course, so i havent been able to do it.

SO:

1. I think
2. therefore i exist.



Good luck! 1 Cor 13:13

Well the first problem I see here is that there is no way to truely prove that you, I or anyone exists.

It is a matter of faith that we even exist at all. One of the few items of faith that science has to hold.

Items science holds in faith even though they cannot be proven...

1. I exist.
2. the univers exists.
3. one can have a meaningful relationship with the universe.

1 and 2 explain them selves. #3 is just the idea of cause and effect are inplace in the universt for most things. i.e. If I drop a penny it will do basicly the same thing every time, on earth it will hit the floor, in space it will float.

Christianity adds a few items of faith to this list

4 God exists.
5 one can have a personal relationship with God.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by Received
nothing times nobody equals everything.

Since when was this ever a piece of scientific naturalism?

Science has never said that everything comes from nothing, Christianity says that as on God + will x nothing = everything = God.

Scientific naturalism just states something more like this...

factor X + reason X = everything we see now.

Factor X and reason X are still unknown at this time.

 

[MrMalone]

You can't prove that god exists.

You can only suggest that god is the best explanation for the origin of the universe based on science and philosophy.

cthoma11 wrote:
The best argument which I have seen and one which could be used with a non-Christian is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore the universe has a cause.


This is saying that universe was made by an un-caused cause. All science and philosophy boils down to that. To be clear, it is only a theory.

In order to defeat that theory, one must come up with a more plausable theory for the origin of the universe. A more reasonable theory. A theory that doesn't add unnecessary dependent conditions to support itself. (This being an application of Occam's razor-- it just means to shave off more entities than needed)

It is not enough to simply object to this theory for whatever various reasons, but one must present a better theory.

Thats all for now.

Peace out.