Proof that the Abrahamic god exists?

[Lulav]

Have you ever read the Bible?

Yes, all of it.

Let me ask you a silly question too, How many poisonous frogs have you eaten?

 

[Spiritlight]

You forgot "will I win the Powerball one day?"

Only for those who can't do math.

 

[True Science]

Atheists really have no excuse. They should know better than to accept the nonsense they do. Yet it is propped up as intellectually and morally superior as if it is some proven or self evident truth and if you don't accept the crap they parrot from their Jesuit academic indoctrination centers you are a stupid caveman. They are the worst people on this earth. The most dangerous to society and life. They are our enemies and want to destroy us as a people. Most Christians and Messianics are actually atheists even thought they don't know it. Southern Israelite on YouTube shows this well.

2Ch 19:2 And Yĕhu son of Ḥanani the seer went out to face him, and said to Sovereign Yehoshaphat, “Do you help the wrong and love those who hate יהוה? Therefore the wrath of יהוה is upon you.

Ninevah was a gentile society, yet the prophet didn't go there to try to argue about them why they were wrong. He told them, God will destroy you soon you wicked people. He didn't go and hug them and say, "would you pray a prayer with me?"

The same thing with the Apostles. Paul insulted the pagans and called them superstitious. They were warned repent and stop follwing stupid stuff or be destroyed.

There is a such thing as tough love. We must cast down all strongholds that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God and his Christ. This man refuses to accept God unless you can prove him from his unprovable logically fallacious methodolgy of acquiring knowledge.

 

[True Science]

Mat 18:1 At that time the taught ones came to יהושע, saying, “Who, then, is greatest in the reign of the heavens?”
Mat 18:2 And יהושע called a little child to Him, set him in their midst,
Mat 18:3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become as little children, you shall by no means enter into the reign of the heavens.
Mat 18:4 “Whoever then humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the reign of the heavens.

Mar 10:14 And when יהושע saw it, He was much displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the reign of Elohim.
Mar 10:15 “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the reign of Elohim as a little child, shall certainly not enter into it.”

Luk 18:16 But יהושע called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the reign of Elohim.
Luk 18:17 “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the reign of Elohim as a little child, shall certainly not enter into it.”

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Has not Elohim made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1Co 2:4 And my word and my preaching were not with persuasive words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5 in order that your belief should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of Elohim.
1Co 2:6 Yet we speak wisdom among those who are perfect, and not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age that are being brought to naught.
1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of Elohim, which was hidden in a secret, and which Elohim ordained before the ages for our esteem,
1Co 2:8 which no one of the rulers of this age knew, for if they had known, they would not have impaled the Master of esteem.

1Co 3:18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become foolish, so that he might become wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with Elohim. For it has been written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”
1Co 3:20 and again, “יהוה knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are worthless.”

 

[singpeace]

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.)

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction,"
-- Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.

Man and ape theory.
Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man. The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human. Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like. Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright. The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).

"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model." -- http://www.icr.org/article/summary-scientific-evidence-for-creation/


Cosmological Argument

1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
   1. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
   1. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
   2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God.

Strengths of the argument
The strengths of the Cosmological Argument lie in both its simplicity and easily comprehensible concept that there cannot be an infinite number of causes to an event. Some arguments for God's existence require more thought and training in terms and concepts, but this argument is basic and simple. Also, it is perfectly logical to assert that objects do not bring themselves into existence and must, therefore, have causes.

Weaknesses of the argument
One of the weaknesses of the argument is that if all things need a cause to exist, then God Himself must also by definition need a cause to exist. But this only pushes causation back and implies that there must be an infinite number of causes, which cannot be.

Also, by definition, God is uncaused.

---https://carm.org/cosmological-argument


There are hundreds of articles written by scientists and astrophysicists from NASA, MIT, Yale, Harvard, and dozens of Universities and scientific research facilities. Many of these fellows have won Pulitzers and the like. They are Christians/Creationists/Theists. Take a look at Hugh Ross; a very close friend and colleague of Stephen Hawking at the following website.

http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-are/hugh-ross

I'm done. I hope you are serious about this issue and are willing to take a look at the evidence that is out there. God bless.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON


Moved from Debate Non-Christian Religions as this is the correct forum.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, you must have evidence that the universe was created by some other means than God, otherwise how can you refute my assertion?

Argument from ignorance?

 

[Belk]

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.

Well said and I agree.

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.

I disagree. An infinite being is not more parsimonious then other explanations.

 

[Lulav]

Most Christians and Messianics are actually atheists even thought they don't know it. Southern Israelite on YouTube shows this well.

Please explain?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I really hate to go off topic but..

Do you really think it was "God" who pointed "your friend" to "Catholicism"; a branch of Christianity littered with paganism?! These are the same people that gave themselves the authority to rewrite Gods 10 Commandments. No one else did this, just them. Furthermore they teach that one can confess their sins to one of their priest and have them forgiven. I thought our Lord was the only one who could forgive our sins.

I don't see how the Catholic Church can teach that a man has the authority to forgive sins. It's against the Bible.

Psalms 130:4
"But with you there is forgiveness." A man cannot forgive the sins of another person. The only sins a man can forgive are those against him directly. Jesus said we should forgive those who sin against us. But how can a priest, or any human being, forgive sins which are not against him directly. Only God can do that.

Let's not go off topic. The OP still has not answered any basic question yet.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

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.)

Ok. I will take a stab at it. Does objective morality exist? Meaning

 

[civilwarbuff]

Argument from ignorance?

Would you care to explain?

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, you must have evidence that the universe was created by some other means than God, otherwise how can you refute my assertion?

I am making it easy for you, I offered 0 evidence that God created the universe. Surely you must have evidence that would preclude the start of the universe without God? I am wide open giving you the opportunity to take your best shot.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It seems the captain has abandoned his ship.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am making it easy for you, I offered 0 evidence that God created the universe. Surely you must have evidence that would preclude the start of the universe without God? I am wide open giving you the opportunity to take your best shot.

Huh? If you have 0 evidence that God created the universe, then presumably you won't conclude that God created the universe?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems the captain has abandoned his ship.

Moving the thread to this location prevents the OP from commenting, presumably due to a rule regarding the number of posts needed to be able to post in Christian Apologetics.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Huh? If you have 0 evidence that God created the universe, then presumably you won't conclude that God created the universe?

I will simplfy the question so you can understand it. I assert God created the universe; I have 0 scientific evidence (OP specified) that He did. Please refute my assertion that God created the universe. It should be easy since I have no scientific evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I will simplfy the question so you can understand it. I assert God created the universe; I have 0 scientific evidence (OP specified) that He did. Please refute my assertion that God created the universe. It should be easy since I have no scientific evidence.

Why would I be required to refute claims that you already admit are unfounded?

 

[PapaZoom]

I would consider #5 above as argumentum ad lapidem.

Agreed. And there the pesky fact that the Bible isn't a single book but multiple attestations to the fact of God's existence. Is it proof? In a court of law, there are many aspects of proving one's case before the court. Many cases are decided solely on circumstantial evidence. There's plenty of evidence for God's existence but one has to be open to the evidence. I wonder if the OP is looking for proof of God and expecting Him to come to earth and walk among us. Oh wait.....even that didn't work.

Matthew 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” 39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

 

[PapaZoom]

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.

Here's a man who was an unbeliever and he put his investigative skills to use in search for the truth. He investigated Mormonism and rejected it. Many of his family members are Mormons. When he investigated the claims of Christianity, from a forensic cold-case homicide investigator's mindset, he found it credible. I'm not offering this up as proof that God exists. Just that I've read his story, read his books, and listened to his podcasts and he is very thorough in looking at every piece of evidence. He's been on Dateline TV and every case he's solved an took to court has been won.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/

If someone is truly seeking God as a possible reality, this is a good place to start. I don't say this to diminish the value of the Bible as the Word of God. But some need a stone in their shoe to get them to really consider the possibility of the reality of God's existence.