What would be proof that God exists?

  • Thread starter Laser Eyes
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, The person asking the question wants all atheists to provide unambiguous proof that God exists. Atheists say that most religions promote a god as being all knowing, all powerful, and transcending space and time. If god wants someone to believe in him, then he should provide unambiguous proof that he exists.
  • #36
Originally posted by The Grimmus
I love this question of proof becuase both sides don't have anything, well "nonbeilvers" have perfect symetry but then "beilvers" parry that with god did it. No one's mind is willing to be open to the other sides opinions because neither side has hard proof.
You can't go on 2000 + year old facts from superstious people who had little understanding of the world compared to what we have to day. The truth is this can be debated and argued for all our lives until we die at which point we will find out who, if anyone, is right (but the atheist can't rub it in your face becuase their non-existent).

Yea so proof for me would be god comeing down from heaven and saying this "Yo dude i exist so go on with your life and perhaps worship me for a while, but don't go crazy like those bible carrying hics".

But when it comes down to it, how many things do you have proof for?

I accept that the big bang scenerio makes the most sense, given the facts we know, but this would hardly be proof.

To me, most of us operate based on fairly limited evidence and almost zero proof. For me, the greater the effort in some task, the greater the need for evidence to support the rational expenditure of that effort.

While the moon landing could, as a miniscule possibility, have been a grand hoax, I expend little energy by accepting it as having occurred.

Science, on many, many occasions, has allowed me to show myself that the things presented were indeed repeatable - so I tend to have a basis to trust the assertions that come from the scientific community.

I work for my employer, because I have good experiential evidence that they will continue to sign my paycheck.

Basic Christianity, however, is something for which I personally have no evidence to support an expenditure of effort. If others have had profound experiences, then they have what they percieve as evidence for the expenditure of effort needed to conform to the practices of whatever Christian sect they believe.

I believe this is where the symmetry between believers and non-believers breaks, excluding those who have had spiritual experiences which constitute personal evidence.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Undeniable logic. That's a perfect proof. I can't give a specific example because that would be proving it myself (hehe), but you know what I mean. A set of uncontestable axioms upon which is built a proof leading inescapably to the existence of god. That is what I would accept as proof. Have it?
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Sikz
Undeniable logic. That's a perfect proof. I can't give a specific example because that would be proving it myself (hehe), but you know what I mean. A set of uncontestable axioms upon which is built a proof leading inescapably to the existence of god. That is what I would accept as proof. Have it?

With that criteria, I don't think that I could prove to myself that I exist.

Your requirements are your own, mine are much, much less stringent.

At least some moderately unambiguous evidence would be a start. Even that seems to have eluded those who've tried to convince me.
 
  • #39
I think it there is evidence for God’s existence because Christianity is different from how man would choose to make religion:

1) It is a relationship instead of a religion
2) Based on asking forgiveness instead of working to be saved
3) Where we must admit that we are wrong and need help
4) Where the things that are called admirable are against our desires (monogamy, with one wife, humbleness, etc.)

It is good evidence for the God of Christianity, the all-powerful and personal creator God of the universe, that Christianity is the only world religion where salvation comes from what God has already done, instead of working for it.

It is good evidence that Judeo-Christian religions are the only ones that have writings that say they are God’s words instead of reflections of man about God.

It is good evidence that the description of the world given in the Bible fits with the world I see. It explains that good and evil exist, as well as why they do. It says that people are very important and matter, and gives a reason for why we do.

It is good evidence that Rome was really afraid of Christianity to the point of rounding up the leaders of Christianity in the coliseum so that they would renounce their faith, but that Rome never did the one thing that would have stopped the movement in its tracks; display Jesus’ dead body so that the nonsense about resurrection would stop.

It is good evidence that 10 people who had lived with Jesus while alive, and those men plus Paul who had seen Him resurrected all died for their belief. They were executed because they would not renounce the fact that they had seen Jesus resurrected, even though if they did say it they would have gone free. It also speaks highly of them that they had nothing to gain by holding to Christ. For their belief in life they were persecuted, beaten, shipwrecked, loathed, imprisoned, made poor, etc…they weren’t getting fame and fortune for their ideas.

It is good evidence that the Bible says God is the only being who knows the future, and that he will validate His authority with predictive prophecy. A good example: Jesus’ birthplace, name, parents, lineage, ministry, manner of death, and death date were all predicted more than 500 years before he was born. We know for certain that the prediction was 170 years before he was born because portions of Daniel and Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that contain some of these prophecies. The prophecies are not vague like those of Nostradamus, but specific and detailed to the point that many people contend they are fabricated. Furthermore, the story couldn’t have been changed later so that it fit the old writings because many of the sources we use for dates, etc. are from outside of the Bible – They come from the Jewish historian Josephus, from Roman records and letters between tetrarchs, from Egyptian documents. To be able to write the Gospels so that they fit the “myth,’ you would have to be able to look into the future and see what historical documents we would use today when examining the issue.
It is good evidence that extra-biblical sources like historians (Josephus) and documents from other Middle Eastern cultures, as well as archaeology support the events described in the Bible as being accurate.

Etc

Etc

But as someone said earlier, there is no 100% proof of God. If there was that kind of proof, we wouldn’t have the free will to reject God if we wished. We must come to Him in faith (= trust) of the facts we do have and what we know about God and say, “God, I don’t know if you are there or not, but I would like to find out. If you exist, prove it to me.” He promises to answer those honest questions in the Bible, and he answered it in my life. These are Jesus’ words in Luke 11:

“"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 "For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.”

If you are interested in this stuff start doing research and I think you will see there is more evidence, detail, and sense in Christianity and God than you think. A good place to start is “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist Harvard Law graduate who went out to prove that Jesus wasn’t real/wasn’t who he said he was and in his search decided to believe in God.
 
  • #40
I don't want to sink too far into this, but...

1) It is a relationship instead of a religion
This is true only recently. Through the medieval golden age of christianity, the idea of a relationship with God was heresy. And I don't see how this is evidence - after all, relationships are one component of the egocentric world of man.

2) Based on asking forgiveness instead of working to be saved
This depends very much on your sect, I suppose. But again, I don't see this as evidence - rival religions would point to this as the laziness of christianity, perhaps.

3) Where we must admit that we are wrong and need help
Try getting a fundamentalist to back down.

4) Where the things that are called admirable are against our desires (monogamy, with one wife, humbleness, etc.)
Do you really desire polygamy? Really? (Of course, this again isn't evidence, just a sign of religion holding to what is evolutionarily favourable. The real question is why we should desire polygamy, when it is unfavourable...)

It is good evidence for the God of Christianity, the all-powerful and personal creator God of the universe, that Christianity is the only world religion where salvation comes from what God has already done, instead of working for it.
Nah, that's just marxism.

It is good evidence that Judeo-Christian religions are the only ones that have writings that say they are God’s words instead of reflections of man about God.
I'd like to point you to the work of akhenaten, one of the guys who proclaimed himself god. Or the eastern religions, who declared mankind to be a part of god. Again, I fail to see how this is evidence of anything but human (perhaps well-deserved, perhaps not) arrogance.

It is good evidence that the description of the world given in the Bible fits with the world I see. It explains that good and evil exist, as well as why they do. It says that people are very important and matter, and gives a reason for why we do.
Folks, it's time for a major contradiction...

Before, you praised christianity for not following the appearances of nature. Here, you praise christianity for following the appearances of nature. Can christianity do wrong? If the bible, for example, were crazy enough to ramble about some visions of edible scrolls and so on, you would put it as evidence of god due to its originality, and if you wastes time on all too human things like incest and slavery, you would put it as evidence of god due to its mundanity.

It is good evidence that Rome was really afraid of Christianity to the point of rounding up the leaders of Christianity in the coliseum so that they would renounce their faith, but that Rome never did the one thing that would have stopped the movement in its tracks; display Jesus’ dead body so that the nonsense about resurrection would stop.
Convenient fact 367(a) - no one knows what Jesus looked like. Hence, it would be impossible for the romans to claim a corpse as being that of Jesus, and such attempts would hardly be included in scripture.

It also speaks highly of them that they had nothing to gain by holding to Christ.
Except fringe benefits like an eternity in paradise. Never underestimate the strength of irrational belief. Patients believing in "alternative treatments" have killed themselves by rejecting medical treatment. Heaven's Gates have killed themselves in their hundreds due to their beliefs. Native American civilisations have once practised human sacrifice, and often the victims are willing. Suicide bombers fill the news. None of this for an instant is considered as real evidence.

We know for certain that the prediction was 170 years before he was born because portions of Daniel and Isaiah were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that contain some of these prophecies.
The dead sea scrolls were compiled long after Jesus' death, as did the bible in the forms we see today. The gospel was made by rejecting hundreds of contradictory works and accounts, and were probably not independent accounts. The unity of the bible is because the book was compiled to be unified, and the Jews, significantly, still reject Jesus' role as messiah.

And of course, the presence of nuggets of truth does not validate the whole book.
 
  • #41
To all, religion does not promote an all powerful god which dominates over us. This is a misunderstanding, and is propagated by those who do not understand. They have the ability, but they are not using it for that purpose. There is a god, for I have seen god. When I say seen, it is the context of an experience which is the god of which I am part of in relative form. It is not a play on words, I am qualifying them as not to make your idea of the word seen the viewing of relative object in the past tense, but to show it's potential of expression with past people or religions. It is the god of all gods for there is only one god, one enlightenment, satori, meaning of life great spirit. I cannot break down your walls, nor can anyone else, you must. Too much candy. The world has you hooked. Disconnect yourself from the world and find the world. It is the only way.
 
  • #42
FZ+

This topic was started as a search for evidence. I listed out things which I think are evidence. Does this mean that anyone of them by itself is 100% proof? No. Are all of them 100% proof, also no.

The first list of 4 qualifications I gave about Christianity were things that I think make it distinct from the way people choose to do things when left to their own devises. There is not another religion or philosophy in the world that believes people can't work to improve their state, or to make things ultimately better, or to gain righteousness through doing work.

Now at the same time, because something is inconsistent with man's ideas, does not mean that it is ill-fitting to the world. Christianity explains why things are the way they are. Many ideas that men have about the same issues are ludicrous, don't make sense, or have no connection with anything physically measurable or know historical fact. Do I agree with the Enuma Elish that the world was made from the hacked up body of a goddess? Do I agree with the determinist who says that thought is only the result of chemical reaction to stimuli, when this implies that there is no free choice, and no importance to people or life at all? Do I agree with Mormons who’s claim to history of both Israel and the Americas is completely unsupported by archaeological evidence? The answer is no for all of them.

I don’t care about what medieval Christianity said or did. I want to go to the source and find out what the truth is, instead of getting someone else’s synopsis of it. That’s why I enjoy reading the Bible. Jesus prays to God asking that he would have the same kind of relationship to people as he had with God himself:

John 17:20-24 “"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22 "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

This sounds like a relationship to me. Certainly older than medieval times.

The primary wrong that needs to be admitted is our need for God in our lives, and how our efforts to be our own God have failed. If we wrong other people, we should admit that wrong as well because we don’t have to be concerned with saving face. Christians should be willing to admit that they were in the past, and continue to be, sinful. However, I don’t need to admit wrong to you for telling you the truth in a loving (kind) way. It may be hard for you to hear, but is more loving for me to tell you the truth than to let you go without having ever heard it, and then being eternally separated from God.

How is polygamy unfavorable? Chimps do it all of the time. But to make it more poignant, perhaps I should have picked a more culturally relevant topic like wealth. The Bible says that striving to be rich is worthless, and is against God’s desire for us to care about the needs of others. This certainly contrasts with the view of mainstream America.

I don’t think Marxism has anything to do with my earlier comment, can you elucidate? Weren’t the Marxist supposed to take control of the means of production through revolt? How does this compare with God rescuing us from a predicament we can do nothing about ourselves?

It is arrogant for someone to proclaim to be God, unless it is true. What I was trying to point out is that for example: the writings of Hinduism are revelations men have had about God. Buddha wrote about being enlightened but did not claim to be God. The Enuma Elish claims to describe how the world was created, but not to be from God. The list goes on.

Immediately after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to approximately 2000 people. They had all been really upset because the person they hoped would liberate them from Rome had died. But now he was back, and they went crazy. They began telling everyone they had seen Jesus alive. Now Pilate and the Pharisees were already upset by the following this guy had who claimed he was a king. Wouldn’t it then make sense to go to the tomb, pull out the body of Jesus, and show it to the people who had seen him alive just 3 days before, and some of whom had lived with him for 3 years? Of course they knew what he looked like! It was the big news of the day.

You are right about the possible reasons for holding out to death. It could also be that they were relying in faith about the afterlife mistakenly, or that they were insane. Definitely it shows commitment, that they believed it was true. The writings that we have from the apostles don’t indicate they are crazy – they are very beautifully written, logical, and consistent. I’d say this rules out insanity. I do however think it is surprising that they were faced with the direct choice of life or death, simply by speaking a few words that they wouldn’t even need necessarily believe. They could lie and say they hadn’t see Jesus, and spare their life. If they were in fact sane men, it is pretty striking evidence for me.

Where do you get your evidence about the date of compilation of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Archaelogists and linguists have agreed on their production in the 175-200 B.C. range. Where is your source to say otherwise?

Even if writings about Jesus were compiled, it would mean that both Christians had widespread power and control of other cultures (in order to adjust history in extra-biblical documents) and that they would be able to see 2000 years into the future to find out what sources would exist today, so that they could change those other works to be consistent to what they had “compiled.” Roman tetrarchs and Jewish historians record his death at the hands of Pilate, the Egyptians record the census, Jewish documents reveal when the construction of the temple began, and the list continues. How would any group of writers be able to accomplish this grand scheme to fool us 2000 years later, and moreover, why would the care?

So I say that the evidence I laid out before as being viable. You can choose to think of it as you wish.

I have an interesting counter-question for the forum. What evidence can you show for God not existing?
 
  • #43
Now at the same time, because something is inconsistent with man's ideas, does not mean that it is ill-fitting to the world. Christianity explains why things are the way they are. Many ideas that men have about the same issues are ludicrous, don't make sense, or have no connection with anything physically measurable or know historical fact.
Our vision of the world comes from man's ideas. And at its root, the examples I gave show that religion is what people do when left to their own devices - if such a case was possible. Do you agree with the fundamentalist who talks about the universe appearing in 7 days? Religions are only the sum of its believers.

The primary wrong that needs to be admitted is our need for God in our lives, and how our efforts to be our own God have failed. If we wrong other people, we should admit that wrong as well because we don’t have to be concerned with saving face.
No, cynical as it is, people only admit the wrongs that are convenient. The point I am making is that there is an alternative explanation for all the strangeness of religion, deriving from their long and drawn out histories and evolving nature through history, and the fact that while you talk about christianity as going counter to human ideas, the fact that there are christians indicates that in some way, christianity is very much an idea that people, currently, can find favourable.

How is polygamy unfavorable? Chimps do it all of the time. But to make it more poignant, perhaps I should have picked a more culturally relevant topic like wealth. The Bible says that striving to be rich is worthless, and is against God’s desire for us to care about the needs of others. This certainly contrasts with the view of mainstream America.
People aren't chimps, are they? People live in a situation where the stability of a long term relationship is evolutionarily favourable for survival, such as child rearing. The same can be seen in similar relationships, such as those of birds.

Rich, sure, it is an ideal. But does anyone actually follow it? The vatican hoards artwork. Churches have tax exemption. And consider the environment where christianity emerged - the early christians were a persecuted cult, the underclass of civilisation, a situation where wealth sharing is directly favourable. Christ gets a favourable reception, because he is pleading for power and wealth redistribution and equality before a final judge, as Marx would do centuries later. And like Marx, it was corrupted for a while by the realities of the world, and now, with that happily cloaked by time, we can recover it and wipe away all that ugly blood and death. The point being, again, there is an alternative reason that history and evidence bears out.

I don’t think Marxism has anything to do with my earlier comment, can you elucidate? Weren’t the Marxist supposed to take control of the means of production through revolt? How does this compare with God rescuing us from a predicament we can do nothing about ourselves?
You misunderstand Marx, then. Marx did not base himself on the need for revolt. Marx prophetised that the future of society lies in a communist state, where ownership is based on need, and production based on capabilities. Marx spoke of a (now apparently mythical) society where all are equal, classes are erased, and greed and want and individual peculiarities are taken out of the equation. By simply being human, and being part of society, you get what you want. Which is, in many ways, a repeat of socialist christianity.

It is arrogant for someone to proclaim to be God, unless it is true. What I was trying to point out is that for example: the writings of Hinduism are revelations men have had about God. Buddha wrote about being enlightened but did not claim to be God. The Enuma Elish claims to describe how the world was created, but not to be from God. The list goes on.
Buddha said that we are all part of God, or the ultimate reality. Furthermore, the gospels were written by men, not gods. And I still don't see what any of this means.

Immediately after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to approximately 2000 people. They had all been really upset because the person they hoped would liberate them from Rome had died. But now he was back, and they went crazy. They began telling everyone they had seen Jesus alive. Now Pilate and the Pharisees were already upset by the following this guy had who claimed he was a king. Wouldn’t it then make sense to go to the tomb, pull out the body of Jesus, and show it to the people who had seen him alive just 3 days before, and some of whom had lived with him for 3 years? Of course they knew what he looked like! It was the big news of the day.

Says who? The gospels were all written at least 200 years after the event. The gospels themselves are contradictory in this account. Matthew has the convenient anecdote of guards being told to tell the governor that the corpse was stolen. The romans, also conveniently, had no account of this big news.

The writings that we have from the apostles don’t indicate they are crazy – they are very beautifully written, logical, and consistent.
Who said the suicide bombers and so on were insane? Can you prove it? Very, very normal people believed in things that made them kill and die. Palestine is not a hotbed of mental illness, but a place where people believe in terrible things. Hitler was a beautiful speaker. The serpent is subtle indeed.

Where do you get your evidence about the date of compilation of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Archaelogists and linguists have agreed on their production in the 175-200 B.C. range. Where is your source to say otherwise?
http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss.htm

The dead sea scrolls consisted of a variety of material, some before and some after. The gospels in which you talk of the fulfillment of the prophecy were written long after, with good access to the original predictions. Can you point out these specific and detailed predictions?

Roman tetrarchs and Jewish historians record his death at the hands of Pilate, the Egyptians record the census, Jewish documents reveal when the construction of the temple began, and the list continues. How would any group of writers be able to accomplish this grand scheme to fool us 2000 years later, and moreover, why would the care?
What roman records of Jesus? Are there any that are truly credible?

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfset17.htm [Broken]

As far as a Roman record of the crucifixion, there is no evidence that there was any such thing. Some would like to claim that Tacitus' reference to Jesus as a man crucified by Pilate indicates such a record, but Tacitus' information could as easily have come from Christian hearsay of the time (around 115 CE). A scholar such as Norman Perrin (The New Testament, An Introduction, p.405) admits that his information probably came from police interrogation of Christians.

Later in the 2nd century, there appeared several gross forgeries on the subject, including letters or reports from Pilate to the emperor Tiberius, in which Pilate describes Jesus' career and crucifixion and acknowledges the validity of Christian faith, including the resurrection. (See Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.VIII, p. 459f.) No one today, and certainly not a scholar of Crossan's caliber, takes these naïve inventions as authentic.

I have an interesting counter-question for the forum. What evidence can you show for God not existing?
I never said God does not exist. I would say that there is no reason, and no usefulness is believing that God does, and on the balance of probability, any specific god almost certainly does not exist because we can use as counter-evidence the infinitude of 'evidence' for an infinitude of other gods. That belief in gods are usually counter productive. It is a common strawman to ask an atheist to disprove God's existence, because atheists do not believe in god's non-existence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
?Our vision of the world comes from man's ideas. And at its root, the examples I gave show that religion is what people do when left to their own devices - if such a case was possible. Do you agree with the fundamentalist who talks about the universe appearing in 7 days? Religions are only the sum of its believers.?

I admit I have gotten a little lost in the conversation, what examples are you talking about here?

I don?t know exactly what to think about the Genesis account of creation. There are several things to consider. 1) The Bible is an account of God?s interaction with man, not a science book. This does not mean that what it says shouldn?t be accurate?just that if it doesn?t elaborate on some natural phenomena it shouldn?t be immediately spurned, because it wasn?t written for that purpose. 2) The Hebrews wrote things differently than we did. They cared much less about chronology than the commonality of events. Thee Genesis 1 account may have occurred in different order than it is explained, but was grouped in a way to show relationships between the specific things created. 3) There are several literary cues used in the Old Testament when the word ?day? means a) a period of indeterminate time, or b) a 24-hour day. I have heard different arguments about whether those cues exists for Gen. 1.

However, coming to science. If I remember correctly the current view is that the majority of the universe was formed in 50 microseconds? With some thousands or millions of years to form planets. But that view is different from what was posited just 25 years ago, and I?m sure it will be different again 25 years hence. Where is the boundary of discovery where you finally say in science, ?aha, this is it,? and never change the idea if you get contrary evidence in the future. Standing on science and saying that, ?this contradicts what the Bible says? can be a shaky argument unless the Bible is violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Then you would have a real issue with the Bible.

The fact that there are Christians could indicate that obviously it is not contrary to human invention; however, why is Christianity the only one that says that you shouldn?t DO anything to be right with God, gods, deity, whatever, but that you should just ask for forgiveness? There are 1000s of religions, 100s of philosophies; and every one of them besides Christianity says that you have to do work to be religious/spiritual. If you don?t do the work, then you are not spiritual. Why is Christianity the only one that is different?

Science would make out that people ARE just overgrown chimps. Muslims are spreading throughout the world right now, and they think that having more than one wife is just peachy. It seems to be evolutionarily favorable if they are gaining in % total population. You have just made a logical error in your argument. You can?t tell me that chimps are a bad example for human relationships because they aren?t people, and then use birds to support the opposite hypothesis.

I agree 100% with your analysis of riches. If everyone is doing it (trying to get rich), and seems to enjoy it, why would people hold it out there as a model for living to not attempt to get rich?

120 A.D. is not 200 years after 33 A.D. You can check out the dates for Greek NT scrolls yourself. What contradictions are in the Gospels? Tell me so that we can talk about them.

The craziness I?m talking about is literal legal insanity. Some people would argue that the disciples were insane, and that is why they would choose to die when they could have gone free. But people that are literally crazy cannot form the consistent thoughts that appear in the writings of the NT. A psychiatrist would not declare them to be mentally ill. However, the delusions of grandeur of Hitler, that may be a different story.

That was a nicely organized website, but little actual meat. It doesn?t show that Daniel or Isaiah appear after Christ?s death at all. In fact typographically (how they date this stuff, because carbon dating is not very accurate +/- 500 years) these documents are from 175 ? 200 B.C. I don?t have my source off hand, but give me the weekend and possibly next week to find my notes.

I won?t go into stringent detail this morning, but I will be more specific in a later post (I have things to do today!). One of the really compelling arguments is from a prophecy of Daniel.

Daniel 9:24-26 ?24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.?

Now earlier in Daniel he talks about why Israel had been enslaved in Babylon, and it was because they had disobeyed the Sabbath of Years. This Sabbath of Years said that they were supposed to let the fields go fallow every seventh year to let them rest, and depend on God for that year to provide them with the food they needed. But the Israelites did not follow this command and so were cast into exile for 70 times 7 (years). So with this context, we know that Daniel is still using sevens to refer to years.

Anyways, I will explain more later. But this prediction is of when the Messiah will die ?be cut off (from the living),? but was made more than 500 years before the event. This part of Daniel appears in the DSS, and has been typographically dated to 175-200 B.C.


Agnostics are those who believe that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. Athiests believe he doesn?t. If you can?t prove God?s non-existence, then you might not want to be so quick to judge on Christianity without looking at some more facts. Its an important issue. If you believe that God can?t be proven or disproven, you may want to check out some arguments to see if that is really true, instead of just a lazy response to scary issues.

Have a good weekend!
 
  • #45
I would start believing if the rules of nature would be broken to benefit mankind.

...or actually broken for any Godlike reason.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Would you really believe if they were, or would you chalk it up to some new phenomena and explain it away? (I am honestly asking)

I think God has already gone far beyond he could be expected to benefit mankind. See my post #101 on https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=183172#post183172.

God went so far for mankind that the angels were surprised at God's goodness:

1 Pet 1:10-12 "10Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things."
 
  • #47
ProtractedSilence said:
Would you really believe if they were, or would you chalk it up to some new phenomena and explain it away? (I am honestly asking)

I believe the rules of nature are unchangeable. The thing is though that we haven't found the whole set of rules yet and maybe we are wrong about some of them.

So if there was some new phenomena we would ofcourse question the rules of nature we found, but I was really talking about miracles. There's no way we would even try to explain the ocean standing as a wall, because otherwise it would flood a whole community, because a dyke broke down. If God ever did benefit mankind then he didn't ever do it this obvious.
 
  • #48
Lorentz,

I think we can read about how God has done some of the type of miracles I think you are looking for throughout the Bible. The ten plagues in Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire, burning bush, water from the rock, parting of the Jordan. What kinds of things were predicted and actually happened when Christ was around? sick healed, lame walk, blind receive sight, dead brought back to life, large crowds fed with almost no food, walking on water.

The Pharisees also demanded a sign from Jesus and this is what he told them:

Matthew 12:8-42 ?Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 "The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the Earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.?

The point being that the Jews who demanded a sign of Christ's authority would have it in the form of history and that Gentiles would be converted and saved before the Jews.

A while later in Jesus? ministry, in Mark, we can read about Jesus healing a man in front of the Pharisees eyes. The response of the Pharisees to this miracle, this sign, is that they immediately begin plotting to kill Jesus. Even when they got the miracle they asked for, they did not believe. These people asked for a sign with the wrong motives, and so they did not get it.

I think that apply this today we can see a possible connection. People in this country have become very enamored with the sciences (which is not a bad thing). But as I said earlier, I think that if God did perform one of these miraculous physical signs, most people would respond not by praising God, but by attempting to figure out what scientific phenomena caused it. I think that most of the miracles that can be seen today in this country are in personal change, relationships, etc, because people can?t explain away these changes with science as easily. They are more willing to accept the possibility that God was involved.
 
  • #49
Agnostics are those who believe that God cannot be proven to exist or not exist. Athiests believe he doesn?t.

Sigh.

Atheists *say* that atheism is the lack of belief in God, not the belief of the lack of God. This is backed up by dictionaries. Would you not feel that atheists have a better idea than theists as to what atheism means?

Agnosticism is not a matter of belief in God, or not. (gnos = to know. agnos = do not know) Agnostics believe in the impossibility of objective judgement. They believe that you can never tell whether God really exists or not, and that it is a matter of faith. You can be agnostic and still be theist, or atheist.

I have looked at the arguments - and quite possible more than you have. Ultimately, all arguments for or against God are either illogical, or simply circular.
 
  • #50
regarding what would prove a God exists...

it is sticky (pun intended) to define what God even means but three attributes commonly attributed to God are omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

i assert that there is no way to emperically prove that a being with the "three o's" exists, at least not directly. (as i will mention in a second, this argument will all be for naught. assume there is a being with just omnipotence. i will take that to mean that the being is able to perform any action requested of it if it so choses. in finite time, there is no demonstration that will prove omnipotence. one could see a demonstration of potentially arbitrarily large degree of "power" but one could never observe an infinite trait belonging to a being.

the only way to emperically prove omnipresence is to be able to observe every possible locations, including locations which may, by definition or virture of the way they are, be non-observable.

it would take infinite time to convey omniscience to a finite mind and while it may be possible to convey a potentially large amount of knowledge to a finite mind in finite time, it isn't possible to do this will all knowledge.

however, as advertized, some of this argument is weakened because an omnipotent being could snap its fingers and provide proof of itself. (maybe it already has but it isn't of the sort of proof that one must accept at this stage and maybe that's an expression of free will.)

therefore, i would tend to believe that a proof of God would not take the form of emperical data.

proof of God to me is like fitting a carpet in room that is too large for it. if you pull the carpet into one corner, it pulls up in another corner. what i mean is that there is a trade-off between proof of existence and definitions. if you define God to be my box of tic-tacs than it's pretty easy to convince someone that God exists. likewise if you define God to be the first cause or the force that created the universe. existence isn't an issue but proving that it has the three properties above, much less is the God worshipped in your favorite religion, is sticky. on the other hand, you can define God to be a being with the three aforementioned properties and even to be the God mentioned in your favorite religion but then proving it exists is sticky.
 
  • #51
Proof enough for me that god, which in my opinion is nothing, exists is the necesity of balance.
 
  • #52
It really depends on what you define god is.

If one claims the originator of everything is god or everything is a part of god, then god must exist.

But this type of god is not the one that we associate with religiously, its just a general philosophical definition of everything or origin of the universe.

People who argue for or against the existence of god seem to confuse the two types together, for example a religious person would argue: "if god did not exist then what created everything? is there no explanation? and things move therefore there must be a first mover... god." The argument is logical, but that person is missing the whole point. Most people who don't believe in the "religious" god, don't believe it because they can't see how the fictional type stuff like heaven and hell really exists without any evidence at all.

Its the "definition" of god that people's views differ on.

Religion and Science are both ways to explain how the universe works. Science is based on deterministic principles while religion is based on elementary human intuition.
 
  • #53
Proof Is Impossible

I've said it before and i will say it again: "it is impossible to prove anything".

all we can do is list the reasons why we believe what we believe.

even when a carpenter with a laser ruler says that a board is 12' long, you can not prove he is right. cause, you can't prove that he, the ruler and board exist.

scientific proof is an agreement, to inderstand and manipulate the physical.

better to ask if one believes in a god and then ask for an explanation.

love & peace,
 
Last edited:
  • #54
xt said:
It really depends on what you define god is.

If one claims the originator of everything is god or everything is a part of god, then god must exist.

But this type of god is not the one that we associate with religiously, its just a general philosophical definition of everything or origin of the universe.

People who argue for or against the existence of god seem to confuse the two types together, for example a religious person would argue: "if god did not exist then what created everything? is there no explanation? and things move therefore there must be a first mover... god." The argument is logical, but that person is missing the whole point. Most people who don't believe in the "religious" god, don't believe it because they can't see how the fictional type stuff like heaven and hell really exists without any evidence at all.

Its the "definition" of god that people's views differ on.

Religion and Science are both ways to explain how the universe works. Science is based on deterministic principles while religion is based on elementary human intuition.

What makes you think it's fictional or not logical? I could diagram the reality of the universe for you. It is what is, but you would have to believe me would you not, unless of course you experienced it for yourself. 17 bone heads also said ah yes, it's real we have scientifc proof and yet you would still believe. 6,000,000,000 humans may also say ah yes it is true, but you would still believe. There is no substitue for experience, because experience is what is.
 
  • #55
ProtractedSilence said:
Lorentz,

I think we can read about how God has done some of the type of miracles I think you are looking for throughout the Bible. The ten plagues in Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire, burning bush, water from the rock, parting of the Jordan. What kinds of things were predicted and actually happened when Christ was around? sick healed, lame walk, blind receive sight, dead brought back to life, large crowds fed with almost no food, walking on water.

The Pharisees also demanded a sign from Jesus and this is what he told them:

Matthew 12:8-42 ?Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." 39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 "The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 "The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the Earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.?

The point being that the Jews who demanded a sign of Christ's authority would have it in the form of history and that Gentiles would be converted and saved before the Jews.

A while later in Jesus? ministry, in Mark, we can read about Jesus healing a man in front of the Pharisees eyes. The response of the Pharisees to this miracle, this sign, is that they immediately begin plotting to kill Jesus. Even when they got the miracle they asked for, they did not believe. These people asked for a sign with the wrong motives, and so they did not get it.

I think that apply this today we can see a possible connection. People in this country have become very enamored with the sciences (which is not a bad thing). But as I said earlier, I think that if God did perform one of these miraculous physical signs, most people would respond not by praising God, but by attempting to figure out what scientific phenomena caused it. I think that most of the miracles that can be seen today in this country are in personal change, relationships, etc, because people can?t explain away these changes with science as easily. They are more willing to accept the possibility that God was involved.


the signs in egypt could be natural random events, and are not backed up by the records of the kingdom of egypt, in fact there is no mention of the jews or their leaving or the death of every first born is recorded and the bible never even names the pharroh so the whole thing is undateable
then the jews travel into the holyland and claim to subdue a land that in fact is a egyptian border land and under their control and rule and once again the egyptian records do not notice this?

3 days and 3 nights for JC in the earth?
btw there never was a man named jesus the name some "HOPE TO BE SAVED BY"
his mom called him ya-sho-wa modern name is joshua, and the name jesus is an tranlation ERROR
he "DIED" late friday,after only a few hours on the cross, note most people took several DAYS to die on the cross, then the body was taken down something prohibided by roman law, as the body was to rot in place, and was laid to rest just before the sundown beginning of the sabbath and he was up and gone by sunday morning sunrize that is two nights and ONE DAY by my count about 36 hours total, then moved to france with mary mags, without ever showing himself to the people or the rulers who "KILLED" him but only a few brief appearances to the faithfull ONLY, again with no offical notice, or record

IF there is a god, and he has a plan he wants me to follow , he would need to tell me about it, HIMSELF, not send some men to claim to know gods will

a brief study of the history of the claimed "MEN OF GOD" will quickly show no hand of god in the work of the church, only evil and greed in the power they misuse
 
  • #56
Proof of the Existence of God

Dear, certainly there are many physical proofs of the existence of God, one of them is the science religion. Mostof the followers of scientists just believe what they say, without any physical and real proof:

How did Johannes Kepler to measure the distances between any 'planet' and the sun and to be sure of his eliptical distances?

What single proof presented Galileo of his movements?

If Newton did not know G how could he determine the F=GMm/r2?

The Optic Gyroscope works because the movement of the source of light affects the velocity of light, the opposite of the teaching of the false genius Einstein.

In the document http://geocities.com/jesuselcristos/hoaxology.html

you should find more of science hoaxology
 
Last edited:
  • #57
xt said:
It really depends on what you define god is.

If one claims the originator of everything is god or everything is a part of god, then god must exist.

Wrong!

Such an all encompassing being ('the everything') does not and can not exist, which can be explained using subtle logic.

To conclude that any specific thing exist, we must normally make an observation. It always requires there to be other things, which are independend and apart from the thing to observe.

We can't claim that the universe exists in the same way, since we aren't outside observers to the universe. We are part of it.

The universe does not exist alongside other things, and as such, we can not make any observations about the universe, we can only observe finite parts of the universe.

The universe itself is not distinguishable from nothing, it hasn't any physical properties.
 
  • #58
heusdens said:
Wrong!

Such an all encompassing being ('the everything') does not and can not exist, which can be explained using subtle logic.

To conclude that any specific thing exist, we must normally make an observation. It always requires there to be other things, which are independend and apart from the thing to observe.

We can't claim that the universe exists in the same way, since we aren't outside observers to the universe. We are part of it.

The universe does not exist alongside other things, and as such, we can not make any observations about the universe, we can only observe finite parts of the universe.

The universe itself is not distinguishable from nothing, it hasn't any physical properties.
aren't we also outside the 'physical' universe at this very moment? i submit that we exist on many levels and the non-physical self can observe our physical universe and pass on this information to the consciouness of the physical being.

aren't there many parallel universes existing with us at this moment?? i believe we get caught up with the physical universe and limit our thinking to what we can see and touch. we are more! we can 'sense and feel'. i can easily accept that this physical universe of ours is but a portion of the UNIVERSE or omniverse that i sense exists.

will you agree that the uni-omni-verse includes our physical universe? it may be time for us to come up with a term that defines the physical universe(s) and another for the totality of all that exists within infinity/eternity?

love and peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #59
there's a concept I think we should all recognize. Each person has his own beliefs. If you line up 10 christians and ask them what exactly is Christianity? What are the morals? What does God look like? All that bull****, you're going to get 10 different, but similar answers. Same with 10 Buddhists or Muslims. An individuals perception of Gods image is altered by his life experiences. A persons past does to their religious views, what hardware does to software. An individual may read the bible (software), but get a different idea because of who he/she (hardware) is.
There also happens to be many individuals that are not Christians, but pretend to be so people will respect them (not me). When they do something sleazy, this makes people hate Christians.
Some Christians are complete idiots that try to force their uneducated opinions on others, but some are decent, misled, people.
I happen to be Atheist. I don't believe there is a god. It's hard to think how the whole world, space, ect. could've been created to how it is without someone to govern, though. I know about nebulas and all that ****, but how was the matter created in the first place? This just leads to so many questions. The answers to these questions many find is God.
I'm totally fine with the love and peace thing, but many people take religion too seriously to be peaceful about it, including me. I get really angry when people try to create religious views into law. I'm fine if people leave me out of their ignorance. I actually know a Christian girl. I admire the fact that she keeps her religion to herself. I speak out against religion in public a lot. I cut it out around her though, because she's shown the respect not to try to convert me. It is true that I will speak out against religion with people present that aren't forcing there religion on me. I'm making it sound like I set up a stage in front of the mall, lol.
I have a friend that is a Satanist. I agree with a lot of his ideas. He's not the stereotype of a Satanist. He does not sacrifice goats, or burn churches down. He does have a good understanding of balance though.

I'll get to my summary, everyone has their own individual religious view. While some may be similar, no two people have the exact same religious views. Some people use the Christian name so people will trust them, giving Christians a bad reputation in some cases. Although I'm Atheist, it seems as if there had to have been a god at some point in time. I think religion is fine if it promotes love and peace, even Satanism.

Trash comes in all wrappers. Black, white, mexican, blonde hair, brown eyes, gay, straight, gothic, punk, Christian, Satanist, Jewish, young, old, rich, poor. Some races, lifestyles, ages, religions, ect. have a higher percentile of trash if you line up 100 of that type of person. That's all I am saying for now, I could go on and on into other topics or stay on the religion. Thank you for reading.

also, whomever wrote "I certainly can't accept that there is a loving and just god that
would allow someone to suffer for eternity. Justice implies a proportionality between crime and punishment, no finite crime balances against an infinite punishment." That is very well put. You have an excellent sense of balance.
 
  • #60
olde drunk said:
aren't we also outside the 'physical' universe at this very moment? i submit that we exist on many levels and the non-physical self can observe our physical universe and pass on this information to the consciouness of the physical being.

aren't there many parallel universes existing with us at this moment?? i believe we get caught up with the physical universe and limit our thinking to what we can see and touch. we are more! we can 'sense and feel'. i can easily accept that this physical universe of ours is but a portion of the UNIVERSE or omniverse that i sense exists.

will you agree that the uni-omni-verse includes our physical universe? it may be time for us to come up with a term that defines the physical universe(s) and another for the totality of all that exists within infinity/eternity?

love and peace,
olde drunk
That's a matter of terminology, the universe as far as we can observe, can be called "observable universe", and we don't need omni/multi verse, the term universe already includes those.
 
  • #61
Who does the will of God, What is the will of God? Jesus knew these answers and God the Father already knows these answers.
If you don't know these answers you walk in fear and darkness.. You walk in sin..

Jesus said "The Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father" which means simply that the Father knew and could read the knowledge thoughts of Jesus and those thoughts revealed to the Father that Jesus new the form of the Father.
Because it is the Fathers Will that we come to the full knowledge of the Father the Holy Spirit (the light of this world).
The Father is spirit.. Your Life force is spirit.. Your brothers Life force is spirit.. If you hate your brothers spirt you hate Gods Spirit..

The spirit of God turns the Earth that you may have day and night and the seasons..
Jesus walked on water to reveal the living God to you in this way he reveals the Father (He walked with the law of God in his heart and mind for He new and loved his Father) who is the fundamental Holy Spirit POWER of the universe.

God is the fundamental foundation of light itself (GRAVITY energy)..
Come to the full knowledge of that light, and then you will find and come to the full knowledge of your God the Father and your own Spirit.

You were a part of the Spirit of God before you were born, and you will be a part of the Spirit of God Spirit when you say you die (You lived before and you will live after, God willing), and for now while you here on Earth you are the Spirit of God in the flesh, For Jesus told you, is it not written 'You are a Gods'.
Please understand and don't walk lower than the animals.. May God Bless you and forgive your ignorance..

Seek the knowledge of the Spirit, the laws of light / gravity, your God.. This is His Will and all that he will ever ask of you...Love Him and he will reveal and show you all things as Jesus has already told you..
 
Last edited:
  • #62
DavidSF said:
The spirit of God turns the Earth that you may have day and night and the seasons..

yes, but let's not forget that superman could reverse the rotation of the Earth, so I guess the spirit met his match ...

Jesus walked on water to reveal the living God to you in this way he reveals the Father (He walked with the law of God in his heart and mind for He new and loved his Father) who is the fundamental Holy Spirit POWER of the universe.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/015walk_on_water [Broken] can walk on water also...

God is the fundamental foundation of light itself (GRAVITY energy)..
Come to the full knowledge of that light, and then you will find and come to the full knowledge of your God the Father and your own Spirit.

Well Einstein would be really glad to hear that the foundation of gravity is light and not the geometry of the space...

I guess you missed the title of the thread, specifically the word proof
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
heusdens said:
That's a matter of terminology, the universe as far as we can observe, can be called "observable universe", and we don't need omni/multi verse, the term universe already includes those.
i agree. my point is that our physical universe is nestled inside a larger universe. to often when the word universe is used it is taken to mean the physical.

it is also quite possible that our larger unvirse is nestled inside another, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

is the total of all universes, god? feels like it.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #64
i agree that i am god as jesus said. that's why he is/was a wise man. unfortunately, we place a mystical meaning to the phrase and ignore the real meaning. we each control our destiny, we are one with whatever god is.

now all we got to do is be true to ourselves and honor our neighbor as ourself. this done, listen to the inner you and you will find your definition of god. i submit that the definition is uniquely individual and defies a definition to satisfy everyone.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #65
Proof

You want proof...

The definition of space-time, can it be separated from gravity or light? do you know your fourth dimensional motion (velocity) through the heavens? do you know the length of your second? do you truly know the real processes of electromagnetic propagation? much of this is still probably mystical and called phenomena to you.

Why is the kingdom of heaven within you? did you not know that inside the atom is an inverted mirror of what is occurring within the heavens.
Jesus said "all things come to them as parables because their is no root in them"
For this reason you do not know that the square root of the electron compton wavelength is, one over your total combination of galactic velocity vectors.

Einstein also understood that three dimensional geometry could not describe space time, as his theory of relativity predicts.

Atomic mass can modify space time can it not? If it can then space time must be able to modify atomic mass structure. which says that space time is not as empty as you may think. Its full of God...

If mass is convertible to energy then energy is convertible to mass.

Your God is Energy, the very structure of space time which we can modulate and send waves through, all frequencies which travel at a singular speed, for this reason he sees everything.

God is the carrier of all sources of electromagnetic light, he even bought my advice to you.

And you wanted proof,

It is all around you. But this you see, but alas you don't see. God forgive You.
 
  • #66
DavidSF said:
You want proof...

The definition of space-time, can it be separated from gravity or light? do you know your fourth dimensional motion (velocity) through the heavens? do you know the length of your second? do you truly know the real processes of electromagnetic propagation? much of this is still probably mystical and called phenomena to you.

Why is the kingdom of heaven within you? did you not know that inside the atom is an inverted mirror of what is occurring within the heavens.
Jesus said "all things come to them as parables because their is no root in them"
For this reason you do not know that the square root of the electron compton wavelength is, one over your total combination of galactic velocity vectors.

Einstein also understood that three dimensional geometry could not describe space time, as his theory of relativity predicts.

Atomic mass can modify space time can it not? If it can then space time must be able to modify atomic mass structure. which says that space time is not as empty as you may think. Its full of God...

If mass is convertible to energy then energy is convertible to mass.

Your God is Energy, the very structure of space time which we can modulate and send waves through, all frequencies which travel at a singular speed, for this reason he sees everything.

God is the carrier of all sources of electromagnetic light, he even bought my advice to you.

And you wanted proof,

It is all around you. But this you see, but alas you don't see. God forgive You.
i do NOT need god's forgiveness. i do gods work, my way. my god doen't require that i know the definition of 'mass' or go to mass. he doesn't care if i ignore or worship. my god only expects that i be me and respect all of creation. AND, i don't need to tithe.

my god is energy! amen.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #67
DavidSF said:
You want proof...

The definition of space-time, can it be separated from gravity or light? do you know your fourth dimensional motion (velocity) through the heavens? do you know the length of your second? do you truly know the real processes of electromagnetic propagation? much of this is still probably mystical and called phenomena to you.

Why is the kingdom of heaven within you? did you not know that inside the atom is an inverted mirror of what is occurring within the heavens.
Jesus said "all things come to them as parables because their is no root in them"
For this reason you do not know that the square root of the electron compton wavelength is, one over your total combination of galactic velocity vectors.

Einstein also understood that three dimensional geometry could not describe space time, as his theory of relativity predicts.

Atomic mass can modify space time can it not? If it can then space time must be able to modify atomic mass structure. which says that space time is not as empty as you may think. Its full of God...

If mass is convertible to energy then energy is convertible to mass.

Your God is Energy, the very structure of space time which we can modulate and send waves through, all frequencies which travel at a singular speed, for this reason he sees everything.

God is the carrier of all sources of electromagnetic light, he even bought my advice to you.

And you wanted proof,

It is all around you. But this you see, but alas you don't see. God forgive You.
hmm I am still missing the proof part

And quit trying to post with the enlighted theme... it makes you seem like you are superior to us, pure in some fashion... I am sure god wouldn't want this now.

Hmm I didin't realize time was heaven... as I travel through the 4th dimension... however this does bring up something funny. The faster i move the more I am removed from heaven. Lol
 
  • #68
Religion topics are always a good time. I guess I'll join in on this one. :) I consider myself Agnostic because I'm in the middle of the situation. But if God turns out to exist I believe it might be possible to achieve proof. So I'm not sure what my grammatical religion would be called.

I can see the perspective of an Atheist well enough. Its like if someone said. There are 23 more planets in the Solar System but they have no proof. However since I personally can't disprove that I don't completely exclude the possibility.

No offense to Christians, but I find Christianity somewhat ironic. The way the beliefs are organized its almost like an interesting fairy tale. I'm sure some people read it as fiction. Some Christian beliefs aren't logical either.

I believe God would be much wiser than portrayed and would've at least explained his reasoning in any book provided to earth. With Christianity the Bible just dismisses something with no logic behind the dismissal. Therefore, I don't believe in the Christian God. Its possible, but I think its quite unlikely.

I'm fairly flexible when it comes to possibilities. I don't think illogical religious beliefs should be considered in government. Thou shall not do something. Why not? I'm disgusted when illogically backed up religious statements are used in government.

I'm not sure what my religion is but to believe in God I think I'd have to see him personally and have a lengthy discussion with him. Depending on how convincing he was I might talk longer or dismiss his statement.

I look at more things from an Atheist standpoint most of the time. It allows me to more logically look at situations and let's me take advantage of life to the fullest without basing my decisions on a possible afterlife.

However when I'm having a bad time I might pray. Prayer helps when nobody else can understand or is around. I think I've done this maybe 3 times since I shifted from parentally influenced Catholic beliefs. Whether or not God is up there Prayer and belief helps people when nothing else can. This is perhaps a reason why people cling so tightly to their religious beliefs. If they do not have them, they have to come up with their own morals. On top of that, they may be alone or fear death more. Many other factors could influence the entire subject.

I hope I didn't offend people. It looks from above that the conversation is fairly heated. If anyone knows what religion I would be considered I'd love to know. ~Thanks.
 
  • #69
"What would be proof that God exists?"

I know of at least three proofs that would work for me.

1) If everyone else believed it, I'd believe it.

2) If everyone who didn't believe it got burned at the stake, I'd believe it.

3) In a more practical vain, this would also work for me:

I examine a stack of 52 cards to ensure that it's a regulation deck. I immediately shuffle the deck to my satisfaction. I immediately deal ten poker hands from the top of this shuffled, regulation deck, and they all have four of a kind. At that point, I would believe in god!
 
Last edited:
  • #70
I think there's a general misunderstanding with regards to science. Scientists don't "believe" things, nor do they rely on scientific literature in the same sense as theists utilize scripture. Scientists weigh evidence and develop theories. The value of a theory is its ability to make experimentally-verifiable predictions.

Thus, when addressing any particular religion, one might ask: what is the strength of the evidence? What predictions does it make, and how can we test them?

I recommend the following book:

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/flex-sign-in/ref=cm_rate_rev_pagepos3/104-1549182-3438313#rated-review&tag=pfamazon01-20
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
89
Views
14K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
3
Replies
94
Views
3K
Replies
42
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
955
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
55
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
604
Back
Top