we have no proofs about the existence of god

[Phil 1:21]

Jesus told the story about the rich man who went to hell and asked Abraham to send someone back to tell his brothers not to come to this place. Abraham told him that if they won't believe the Law and the Prophets, it won't make any difference if someone was raised from the dead to warn them because they wouldn't believe him either.

The Pharisees of Jesus' time witnessed His miracles yet they did not believe in Him and conspired to kill Him because He threatened their status and their approach to their religion.

So if people won't believe the Bible, then all the empirical proof in the world won't convince them of the truth of the Gospel because the devil has blinded their minds so that they cannot see or understand what the Gospel is all about.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want

I disagree big time.

The proof is God's Word and it clearly shows us that it is divine in origin.

Check out my Blogger Article here:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

 

[chilehed]

maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want

Sure we do. We exist, therefore so does God. First Cause and all... study St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[Simon_Templar]

maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want

You are missing an entire class of proofs. You allow for "spiritual" proofs and "material" proofs. There is a third class, namely logical or philosophical proofs. There are logical / philosophical proofs for the existence of God.

The problem is not the lack of proof. The problem is that people ultimately believe what they want and many people do not find proof convincing. There is a difference between something being proved and people being convinced that it is proved. For an example of this just consider how many people today believe the moon landings were faked, or that the earth is flat.

The proofs that are available are enough for a logical and open minded person. In other words, they are enough for someone who is looking and wants to see. However they are also avoidable enough that people can still NOT see if they don't want to see. This is to allow human freedom. God does not want to compel belief.

 

[mathinspiration]

They are blinded by their ignorance. If really want physical proof, they look at nature, look at chemicals and microbes. Germs are Darwin’s Black box. They should try math, it is the alphabet God used to make the Universe?

 

[Almost there]

maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want

Creation is proof. Thread killed.

 

[AmazingGraceCountry]

Why is people are always looking for proof, there is no end of possible subject
matter for us to dissect in the natural world, to even completely understand the
full story behind how One single insect lives could take a life time if doing a thorough
investigation covering all possible subject matter, environmental influences etc,
and even knowing all this, people think it is within our abilities or understanding to
put forward prove God lives.

I have an idea, why don't those who don't believe start to read the word of God,
and see how it changes your lives, and when you can not attribute this change
to anything of this world, then maybe it will hit home that there is indeed a God.

Here's another idea, next time you hurt, stop pretending you sissy,
because we can not see pain, how then is it there, or do only Christians
feel pain, and atheists are immune, after all there is no way to see this pain
so it must not exist.

Try God out, sign up to his ways, that's how you come to know God.

 

[mukk_in]

maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want

Not true son. As the Apostle Paul had said, God has given more than enough proof of His Divinity through nature and creation (Romans 1:19-20). However, the Only proof one will ever need is the God-Man, Jesus of Nazareth. God bless .

 

[Almost there]

Why is people are always looking for proof, there is no end of possible subject
matter for us to dissect in the natural world, to even completely understand the
full story behind how One single insect lives could take a life time if doing a thorough
investigation covering all possible subject matter, environmental influences etc,
and even knowing all this, people think it is within our abilities or understanding to
put forward prove God lives.

I have an idea, why don't those who don't believe start to read the world of God,
and see how it changes their lives, and when they can not attribute this change
to anything of this world, then maybe it will hit home that there is indeed a God.

Here's another idea, next time you hurt, stop pretending you sissy,
because we can not see pain, how then is it there, or do only Christians
feel pain, and atheists are immune, after all there is no way to see this pain
so it must not exist.

Try God out, sign up to his ways, that's how you come to know God.

Yep. No offense to the OP, but technically I see threads like this one to be trolling.

Kinda like saying, "show me proof that we landed on the moon.

 

[Cat Loaf You]

maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want

What do you mean no proofs ? Christianity is based on evidence not blind faith .

 

[Yarddog]

maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want

I wouldn't say that. We have proof of God, but many don't accept that proof.

Life is proof of God.

The more and more that scientists look at what must occur for life to exist that are finding it more and more an impossibility. Scientist cannot explain the mechanics of how DNA came into being. They cannot explain how a creature could change their cellular structure in order to create a brain or form the necessary bodily functions to begin to see.

If life cannot create itself something intelligent did. And that something is God.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

maybe spiritual proofs but not material proofs that unbelievers want[/QU

One need only use an Encyclopedia of Philosophy to look up the basic proofs for the Existence of God and the counter arguments.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

One need only use an Encyclopedia of Philosophy to look up the basic proofs for the Existence of God and the counter arguments.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The Apostle Paul was directly quoting Genesis 22 which labels Isaac as Abraham's only begotten son.

Abraham sent away both Hagar and Ishmael in Genesis 21.

Only Isaac was to directly inherit from Abraham, though God promised to provide for Ishmael and his mother.

Hebrews 11:17Expanded Bible (EXB)
17 It was by faith that Abraham, when God tested him, offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice [Gen. 22:1–10]. ·God made the promises to Abraham, but Abraham [L The one who received the promises] was ready to offer his ·own [unique; one of a kind; John 3:16] son as a sacrifice.

 

[messianist]

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[Greg Merrill]

So even if those are explanations are written outside The Bible you feel they are God inspired as well ?

GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

And someone explains this really was his janitor being rowdy so one his sons wasn’t really his. This makes up for lack of consistency?

I am teaching through the book of Hebrews at my church currently, and have covered Hebrews 11:17. Of course Abraham had Ishmael and Isaac as sons. That was so well known that to make a mistake regarding He 11:17, especially when the inspiration of the H.S. makes no mistakes, is ridiculous. He 11:17 is accurate, so what is the explanation? First 1 Corinthians 2:14, then this> Isaac is the only begotten son "of promise". The promise comes through only "one" son, Isaac. Oh how I love the wisdom of God over the foolishness of man. Regarding "inspiration" of explanations, only the Scriptures are "inspired", but that doesn't mean that we only have the brain of a billy goat, and can't use what God did give us to rightly understand and teach (God-given gift of teaching, Eph 4:11) what His Word truly means.

 

[Smylie]

But do the unbelievers have any proof of the non-existence of God? No, they don't.

 

[chirpyluna]

Hi. It's a valid question. My personal view is that God is greater than any proof that any mortal can provide. God is love. If I love you, I can try to "prove" my love for you with hugs, kisses, passionate lovemaking, gifts, compliments, and support when you need it. However, it's going to be the faith you can only feel in your heart that assures you that I love you. There IS no proof of love, yet virtually all of us do it every day. I say, let the lawyers deal with "proof;" God is about love. Just some food for thought; not trying to prove anything

 

[Favourofone]

But do the unbelievers have any proof of the non-existence of God? No, they don't.

You can’t have proof of nonexistence of anything so that’s bit absurd.

 

[Simon_Templar]

So even if those are explanations are written outside The Bible you feel they are God inspired as well ?

GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

And someone explains this really was his janitor being rowdy so one his sons wasn’t really his. This makes up for lack of consistency?

This is an issue of translation, not logical inconsistency.

The Greek word "monogenes" is behind the phrase "only son" in these passages. Scholars used to believe that this word meant "only begotten" as a compound of "mono" meaning only and "genes" meaning to beget or generate.

More recently Greek scholars have discovered that "genes" doesn't derive from the root word for beget or generate, but rather from the root for "kind".

Thus the phrase should not be translated as "only begotten" or "only son" but rather as "only one of his kind" or "unique son".

This applies to Isaac because he was the unique son of promise. Abraham had other sons, but they were not the sons of promise, they were not the sons meant to inherit the covenant. That was unique to Isaac. As a result all of Abraham's hopes for the fulfillment of God's promise rested on Isaac, not his other sons.

Thus Isaac was unique among the sons of Abraham.

Similarly the bible talks about other "sons of God" referring to the angels, and even in some cases human beings, but Jesus is the "Unique Son" or the only Son of his kind. He stands apart from all the other sons because he alone is the direct emanation of the Father. All the other sons of God are sons by creation or by adoption. Jesus is neither of those.