Proof that the Abrahamic god exists?

[Quid est Veritas?]

1. No anecdotes (personal events)
2. No long commentaries.
3. Use scientific evidence.
4. Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
5. No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)

First, do you understand what "science" means? Science uses falsifiability and repeatability to test hypotheses. It seeks to disprove.
Therefore, nothing can be proved by science. It is a impossibility of terms, for if you have "proved" something it is no longer falsifiable and therefore no longer scientific. That is why widely accepted hypotheses in science are termed theories and the term fact is not really used (except by laymen).
So to prove God scientifically is impossible, on the basis of the definition of science.

Secondly, the defintion of the Abrahamic God cannot be disproved by empiric methods either.

Based on these two points, God cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific means. Hence, Agnosticism is the only Scientific viewpoint on God.

If you allow the other disciplines of Philosophy, Ontological reasoning, Metaphysics and their ilk, then we can maybe have a discussion.

On another note, Mr. Occam's Razor (Occam by the way was a Franciscan and a Theologian, so you actually named yourself after a theology principle), if we applied Occam's Razor to modern Theology versus Current Physics with its multiple universes, string theory, quantum theory (all metaphysical assertions), then physics would be discarded as the assumptions needed for Theology are a lot less than those that Theoretical Physics require.

 

[Anguspure]

Designed by whom? You cannot assert the biblical god is your creator without evidence. Just like you would ask a Muslim to prove Allah is the one true god.

I think you've got it upside down.

Believers don't claim that the God of the Bible is the Creator of the universe, in the way that you suggest.

Rather they claim that the contents of the Bible (66 books/letters written by 40 authors) are the best, most complete and most accurate revelation of the Creator of the universe that has ever been given (God breathed so to speak).

Further more; Christian believers claim that the man Jesus of Nazareth is in Himself, as a man, the most complete revelation of the Creator that has ever been witnessed on earth.

It is likely that other people and people groups throughout the earth have had certain revelations of the Creator and this is well attested to to. Further more at least one Biblical author states that this is the case (The Apostle Paul).

So the evidence that the God of the Bible is the Creator is given in the first sentence of the book Genesis: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This sentence sets the context of the rest.

Whether you agree that the rest of it best describes this God, or whether you prefer somebody else's description (Koran, Vedas, Kulpa Sutra, etc) is a different story.

 

[Cappadocious]

1. No anecdotes (personal events)
2. No long commentaries.
3. Use scientific evidence.
4. Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
5. No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)

1.You directly perceive God.
2. If (1) then God exists.
3. God exists.

 

[True Science]

Face it, you wouldn't believe in God unless He appeared right in front of you. That's the only evidence you would accept: Obviously a complex universe fine tuned for our extraordinary existence isn't enough for you. No one convinced me Jesus existed with argumentation or empirical evidence, but I simply read His word and followed Him as a sheep follows his shepherd.

Some have said this wouldn't even be enough. Because maybe they are hallucinating or crazy or something.

 

[True Science]

First, do you understand what "science" means? Science uses falsifiability and repeatability to test hypotheses. It seeks to disprove.
Therefore, nothing can be proved by science. It is a impossibility of terms, for if you have "proved" something it is no longer falsifiable and therefore no longer scientific. That is why widely accepted hypotheses in science are termed theories and the term fact is not really used (except by laymen).
So to prove God scientifically is impossible, on the basis of the definition of science.

Secondly, the defintion of the Abrahamic God cannot be disproved by empiric methods either.

Based on these two points, God cannot be proven nor disproven by scientific means. Hence, Agnosticism is the only Scientific viewpoint on God.

If you allow the other disciplines of Philosophy, Ontological reasoning, Metaphysics and their ilk, then we can maybe have a discussion.

On another note, Mr. Occam's Razor (Occam by the way was a Franciscan and a Theologian, so you actually named yourself after a theology principle), if we applied Occam's Razor to modern Theology versus Current Physics with its multiple universes, string theory, quantum theory (all metaphysical assertions), then physics would be discarded as the assumptions needed for Theology are a lot less than those that Theoretical Physics require.

^ This. So OP, are we still bound by so-called "science." Or are you going to assume your self-contradictory appeal for proof from an epistemology that is not good for being sure about anything is the only way to go? By the way, originally from a linguistical standpoint, science just means knowledge. You assume that the only way we can know this is by following a methodology for acquiring knowledge by which we cannot truly actually know anything. Also to come to such a conclusion that "science" is the acid test for what is true one must use reasoning, which is metaphysical.

 

[Jeshu]

Only the ignorant or the foolish deny the truth to be the truth, the truth simply is you can't deny Him.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

^ This. So OP, are we still bound by so-called "science." Or are you going to assume your self-contradictory appeal for proof from an epistemology that is not good for being sure about anything is the only way to go? By the way, originally from a linguistical standpoint, science just means knowledge. You assume that the only way we can know this is by following a methodology for acquiring knowledge by which we cannot truly actually know anything. Also to come to such a conclusion that "science" is the acid test for what is true one must use reasoning, which is metaphysical.

The person who started the thread requested proof from a scientific viewpoint, by which he obviously means scientific method, a philosophic subdivision. This is what I was referring to.
Etymologically Science means knowledge, but that is not what the original poster meant.

 

[Anguspure]

Etymologically Science means knowledge, but that is not what the original poster meant.

Yup; Its the old scientific semantic duck and weave goin' on.

 

[True Science]

^ This. So OP, are we still bound by so-called "science." Or are you going to assume your self-contradictory appeal for proof from an epistemology that is not good for being sure about anything is the only way to go? By the way, originally from a linguistical standpoint, science just means knowledge. You assume that the only way we can know this is by following a methodology for acquiring knowledge by which we cannot truly actually know anything. Also to come to such a conclusion that "science" is the acid test for what is true one must use reasoning, which is metaphysical.

This thread is stupid then, I'm sorry.

 

[True Science]

The only thing this thread is good for is showing how it is a waste of time to convince or debate a physicalist atheist who is bent on his ways.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This thread is stupid then, I'm sorry.

Which was my point exactly. The original poster needs to allow a broader knowledge base, because his question was not a scientific proposition and cannot be answered by modern scientific means.

 

[True Science]

Which was my point exactly. The original poster needs to allow a broader knowledge base, because his question was not a scientific proposition and cannot be answered by modern scientific means.

Yeah I know. I was merely affirming that.

 

[Lulav]

Why do these kinds of people even bother signing up in the first place?

Maybe to float term papers?

Some have said entertainment value. A few admitted to me to proselytize anti-theism. Some are just curious and perhaps some truly seek answers to questions.

They post we answer and the cycle is repeated.

This thread is stupid then, I'm sorry.

The only thing this thread is good for is showing how it is a waste of time to convince or debate a physicalist atheist who is bent on his ways.

Which was my point exactly. The original poster needs to allow a broader knowledge base, because his question was not a scientific proposition and cannot be answered by modern scientific means.

If I were an Atheist and came to a Christian forum to find if my beliefs were correct that the God of Christians wasn't real these kinds of answers would definitely prove it.

The only 'entertainment' I'm seeing is not from the OP's side.

Is this the kind of way Jesus would have responded to his questions? Are Christians not to be followers of Jesus?

Think about that before you respond in kind. (this is not aimed specifically at the quoted posts, just at these kinds of responses)

 

[Lulav]

1. No anecdotes (personal events)
2. No long commentaries.
3. Use scientific evidence.
4. Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
5. No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)

Hi, and welcome to the forums.

Can I ask you a maybe not so simple question?

What made you come here and ask for this proof?
Have you ever believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Is so what made you stop believing?

 

[True Science]

If I were an Atheist and came to a Christian forum to find if my beliefs were correct that the God of Christians wasn't real these kinds of answers would definitely prove it.

The only 'entertainment' I'm seeing is not from the OP's side.

Is this the kind of way Jesus would have responded to his questions? Are Christians not to be followers of Jesus?

Think about that before you respond in kind. (this is not aimed specifically at the quoted posts, just at these kinds of responses)

Have you ever read the Bible?

 

[Anguspure]

[QUOTE"]
Is this the kind of way Jesus would have responded to his questions? Are Christians not to be followers of Jesus?

Appreciate your concerns but in spite of the fact that posters are certainly imperfect followers, I would suppose that it is also true that Jesus of Nazareth would have found himself equally or more incredulous at the unwillingness of people to follow the evidence that tap danced itself across their collective noses.
He is quoted as saying: A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

 

[True Science]

Look how he answers people here:

Mat 21:23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
Mat 21:24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
Mat 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
Mat 21:26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
Mat 21:27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
Mat 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
Mat 21:30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
Mat 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
Mat 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
Mat 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
Mat 21:34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
Mat 21:35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
Mat 21:36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
Mat 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
Mat 21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
Mat 21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
Mat 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
Mat 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Mat 21:45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
Mat 21:46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

 

[True Science]

Tit_3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

 

[Lulav]

Tit_3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Paul was giving advice for the congregation (ie, believers) to Titus whom he left in charge.

4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee..........................

 

[Lulav]

Appreciate your concerns but in spite of the fact that posters are certainly imperfect followers, I would suppose that it is also true that Jesus of Nazareth would have found himself equally or more incredulous at the unwillingness of people to follow the evidence that tap danced itself across their collective noses.
He is quoted as saying: A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

Yes he did rebuke them, rebuking those who did believe in God. They should have known and understood the scriptures and the evidence standing in front of them but their Hellenistic ways blinded them to it. That has nothing to do with a present day skeptic.

I believe that he would, as God understand how anyone in this day and age with all the bombardment of opposition of his existence through TV, Radio, newspaper, books, and the biggest of all the internet, would be confused and need to ask question.