Proof that God exists?

[KCfromNC]

If by the Spirit, I am humbled to receive illumination from God from His words, and if I listen to the voice of Christ who speaks within, then I understand all that He desires for me to know.

How do you know that the voices you hear in your head are God and not something else?

 

[BobRyan]

absolute proof God exists.

1. Pick up a flower - study it closely.

2. now throw it way.

3. Pick up your chemistry set.

4. Make a living flower using your chemistry set alone.

Hint: The Urey-Miller failure

I have a much better idea.

absolute proof meaningless waffle.

1. Pick up a flower - study it closely.

2. now throw it way.

3. No third step.

4. Make a living flower using your immaterial mind alone.

Hint: Creatio ex-nihilo

Yes but then you don't give the atheists a sporting chance.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes but then you don't give the atheists a sporting chance.

A sporting chance at what?

Speaking of sports:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7678827/#post61141459

Originally Posted by bugkiller

College football is much better and it is on the sabbath. So does God also watch football on the sabbath too? I hope He does. I do!

 

[someguy14]

John 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

John 3:12
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

 

[Elioenai26]

How do you know that the voices you hear in your head are God and not something else?

The same way you know your loved one is on the other end of the phone when you are talking to them. You know the person and in knowing the person, you are able to determine whether what they are saying is in agreement with what you know of the person.

I do not see God, nor do I hear an audible voice. It is a communication that is not conducive to linguistic explanation.

 

[Elioenai26]

Sometimes you wish it really were so.



And that too. But I am not really seeing a lot of it. On the other hand, maybe the constant spewing of nearly meaningless platitudes and apologetic sophistry is merely a means of drowning out these accusation(s)?

No doubt, many "religious" people were rebuked by Christ for their pretense. It is no different today, for there is nothing new under the sun!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes but then you don't give the atheists a sporting chance.

You have got no living flower, have you?


(I am not really serious here. I know you can't. Immaterial minds creating stuff. LOL)

 

[Elioenai26]

All this shows is that a home chemistry set can't make flowers. Nothing to do with your deity - try again.

(And apparently god can make pretty flowers yet can't make a christian that can argue )

A Christian is one who follows Christ. Not one who argues with people.

Christ said that the world would know that we are His disciples by the love we have for one another, not by how we argue with people.

 

[Gadarene]

A Christian is one who follows Christ. Not one who argues with people.

That's still no excuse for such incompetence

Christ said that the world would know that we are His disciples by the love we have for one another, not by how we argue with people.

And you're failing on both. Good show.

 

[Elioenai26]

You have got no living flower, have you?


(I am not really serious here. I know you can't. Immaterial minds creating stuff. LOL)

Scientists are unable to simulate life coming from non-life in a controlled experiential environment, and yet some want us to believe that this could happen in an uncontrolled, hostile, unintelligent, chaotic environment at random.

This is why many do not accept naturalistic origin of life theories.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Scientists are unable to simulate life coming from non-life in a controlled experiential environment, and yet some want us to believe that this could happen in an uncontrolled, hostile, unintelligent, chaotic environment at random.

This is why many do not accept naturalistic origin of life theories.

So when scientists are able to do exactly that, you will be prepared to accept a naturalistic explanation to the origin of life?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The same way you know your loved one is on the other end of the phone when you are talking to them.

Not really, since one has experience of one's loved one in the flesh, which provides a necessary basis for comparison. It's because one can compare one's in-person experience with a phone-voice that one is able to verify that person's identity as a flesh-and-blood individual, instead of, let's say, a deceptive computer generated voice.

What you are talking about is completely subjective every step of the way. It's not any way to distinguish between a purely psychological experience and a deity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Scientists are unable to simulate life coming from non-life in a controlled experiential environment, and yet some want us to believe that this could happen in an uncontrolled, hostile, unintelligent, chaotic environment at random.

This is why many do not accept naturalistic origin of life theories.

Wait a minute ... You are not able to produce a flower or even just a grain of sand with just using your immaterial mind. And yet you claim that an immaterial mind is capable of creating whole universe(s).

I expect you to become Agnostic now.


(No, I wasn't serious here with the last comment. I don't expect any such a thing; it would be foolish. Oh .... And never forget, I am not a naturalist. I mean, in case you wish to follow the usual apologetic MO of trying to shoot down self-same naturalism. )

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So when scientists are able to do exactly that, you will be prepared to accept a naturalistic explanation to the origin of life?

Naturalistic explanations have to fight really hard to be accepted. As an apologist on the other hand you can just assert stuff. Shouldn't be hard to make up some excuse.

 

[Elioenai26]

Not really, since one has experience of one's loved one in the flesh, which provides a necessary basis for comparison. It's because one can compare one's in-person experience with a phone-voice that one is able to verify that person's identity as a flesh-and-blood individual, instead of, let's say, a deceptive computer generated voice.

What you are talking about is completely subjective every step of the way. It's not any way to distinguish between a purely psychological experience and a deity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

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.

 

[Elioenai26]

Wait a minute ... You are not able to produce a flower or even just a grain of sand with just using your immaterial mind. And yet you claim that an immaterial mind is capable of creating whole universe(s).

I expect you to become Agnostic now.


(No, I wasn't serious here with the last comment. I don't expect any such a thing; it would be foolish. Oh .... And never forget, I am not a naturalist. I mean, in case you wish to follow the usual apologetic MO of trying to shoot down self-same naturalism. )

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

In this we agree.

Why, because I am not God.

 

[KimberlyAA]

It was interesting. I've done it before. Makes sense.

 

[Elioenai26]

So when scientists are able to do exactly that, you will be prepared to accept a naturalistic explanation to the origin of life?

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?

 

[Skavau]

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?

So your honesty goes from being a facade expressed to others to being outright expelled by you. You're not interested in the truth. You will assume and will always assume that any kind of explanation of anything given to you that discards the presumption of necessity of involving God is false. You will literally consider it some kind of deception.

You literally say to us that you will not and cannot reconsider your position. Why on that note do you expect any of us to reconsider ours? If you won't make any attempt to listen to opposing viewpoints and argumentation in its favour then why should we of you?

 

[dlamberth]

The strengths of your beliefs doesn't show how accurate they are.

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.

.