I have heard all the retohric, the Bible versus etc etc etc
What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either.
Please note the words "Tangible" and "Logical". If wish to use quotes from the religious texts then please prove the vadility of the source. e.g. If you quote from the Bible book of Luke please provide proof Luke existed and was not completly stark raving mad.
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt for it is easily filled with faith.
Anyone got proof of God
Moderator: Moderators
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20849
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 365 times
- Contact:
Post #31
Part of the problem is that the OP is not clear on what the topic of debate actually is. I take it to ask, "Are there any logical arguments for the existence of God?" I respond that there is at least one, and I provided the thread with an argument that is "tangible" and "logical".Cogitoergosum wrote: Sorry, didn't quite understand what you meant here, i was just saying you pointed out to a THREAD where a lot has been discussed, did you want me to debate a specific thing?
No perfectly tangible "proof".
Post #32I don't think that people will find "proof" (like CSI) of "GOD".
Even the Bible says God is "spirit"; from everything I know, that isn't something which can be touched or somehow collected by our natural human senses. So, I tend to relegate mankind's understanding of God (if He truly exists) to feelings, emotions and various concepts of "faith". And that seems to be exactly how He would want it to be, based upon all I have learned in my nearly 50 years of life.
I "believe" that there is mre to life than what science can physically analize or "prove", but I find it to be perfectly understandable that some human beings cannot apply belief, faith and/or available "evidence" as I personally do. People simply will not "believe" in the SAME things (for myriad and valid reasons).
So, I would say that while we may ALL have arguments and evidence to support what we personally support our "beliefs" (or philosophies), those things will likely never be sufficient to PROVE (to anyone and everyone) that our view is absolutely "true" or "correct". We may find "some" who agree with us completely, but it is clear enough, that nearly ANYTHING can be challenged by the human mind; or is it that the human mind can be challenged by anything?
-Mel-
Even the Bible says God is "spirit"; from everything I know, that isn't something which can be touched or somehow collected by our natural human senses. So, I tend to relegate mankind's understanding of God (if He truly exists) to feelings, emotions and various concepts of "faith". And that seems to be exactly how He would want it to be, based upon all I have learned in my nearly 50 years of life.
I "believe" that there is mre to life than what science can physically analize or "prove", but I find it to be perfectly understandable that some human beings cannot apply belief, faith and/or available "evidence" as I personally do. People simply will not "believe" in the SAME things (for myriad and valid reasons).
So, I would say that while we may ALL have arguments and evidence to support what we personally support our "beliefs" (or philosophies), those things will likely never be sufficient to PROVE (to anyone and everyone) that our view is absolutely "true" or "correct". We may find "some" who agree with us completely, but it is clear enough, that nearly ANYTHING can be challenged by the human mind; or is it that the human mind can be challenged by anything?
-Mel-
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-
-
Fisherking
Post #33
oops, I hit quote instead of edit, next post pls!bernee51 wrote:Absolutely none. Do you?Fisherking wrote:Do you have proof that there is?bernee51 wrote:Do you have you proof there are no fairies at the bottom of your garden?Fisherking wrote:And you have proof that God doesn't exist?ithinkthereforeiam wrote:Typical answers talk in circles or God exists because we want to live forever (fear of death) or see dead people. Well, I think people should be able to fly, doesn't mean Superman exists or that I can fly. Just because it gives you a warm fuzzy, doesn't mean it's true. Feelings don't mean god exists, animals have feelings to.
What type of proof? How about the same type of proof that lets me know the Sun exists. I can see it and I can feel it's energy. So, god show yourself to everyone on Earth right now so you can save everyone and let us into your exclusive club called heaven. God? Hello, god?
Tell me - do you believe it is possible to prove the non-existence of anything??
Last edited by Fisherking on Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Fisherking
Post #34
Fisherking wrote:bernee51 wrote:Absolutely none. Do you?Fisherking wrote:Do you have proof that there is?bernee51 wrote:Do you have you proof there are no fairies at the bottom of your garden?Fisherking wrote:And you have proof that God doesn't exist?ithinkthereforeiam wrote:Typical answers talk in circles or God exists because we want to live forever (fear of death) or see dead people. Well, I think people should be able to fly, doesn't mean Superman exists or that I can fly. Just because it gives you a warm fuzzy, doesn't mean it's true. Feelings don't mean god exists, animals have feelings to.
What type of proof? How about the same type of proof that lets me know the Sun exists. I can see it and I can feel it's energy. So, god show yourself to everyone on Earth right now so you can save everyone and let us into your exclusive club called heaven. God? Hello, god?
I do not believe it is possible to prove something that does not exists does not exist.Tell me - do you believe it is possible to prove the non-existence of anything ?
-
The Duke of Vandals
- Banned
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:48 pm
Post #35
Kudos to melikio for answering semi-honestly. The rest of you gave the same horrid showing I've come to expect from theists on this subject.
Let's review the Christians' showing on this thread so far. We'll start with Achilles because he was first to reply and his replies covered all the usual categories of dishonest response.
All it takes is a moment's thought to realize exactly how bankrupt this defense is.
Tomorrow, a burning bush appears on the White House lawn and begins speaking in a voice that everyone in the world hears simultaneously (even the deaf). It says, "I am He who spoke to Moses. Make peace amongst yourselves." If Achilles were honest, he'd have to ask himself, "Is this really proof?" He'd want to reserve judgement and really dig deep to find an explanation.
Do any of you really believe that's what Achilles (or any Christian) would do? No. They'd be trumpeting the news of Yahweh(sp?) to the heights of every tower and blog on the planet.
If any of the events in the gospel or the OT replayed themselves in front of cameras and eyewitnesses, we should hear people like Achilles asking, "Well, can that count as proof?" We all know they wouldn't.
Silly objection. Moving on.
Tactic 2: Shifting the burden of proof.
The second line of quoted comments is par from the course here and it's the sort of thing you may hear on a playground. It goes something like this:
Person 1: Something completely absurd and unproven is true.
Person 2: What evidence do you have to support your claim?
Person 1: Where is your evidence my claim is false?
Person 1 is obligated to support their claim. Person 2 is simply pointing to the lack of evidence and the status quo.
Joe: "Invisible flying monkeys are real and all around us right now."
Sally: "That's retarded. Monkeys can't fly or turn invisible. Where's your proof?"
Joe: "Can you prove they're NOT all around us?"
Sally is under no such obligation because it is Joe's responsibility to provide support for his claim.
It is up to Christians to prove their claim. All atheists need to do is demand proof and watch Christians twist, evade and fast talk.
Tactic 3: The pejorative claim of 'close-mindedness'.
Achilles indirectly implied that Christians are open minded... presumably because they've accepted the claims of their religion even with the overwhelming evidence of the rest of the world.
What drivel?
The 90's gave Western society & pop culture the idea that being open-minded towards other cultures and ethnicities is a good thing... while being close-minded is a bad thing. Christian apologists have used this tendency to imply their intellectually bankrupt claims are a badge of honor. "You don't believe what Christianity claims because you're close minded." Unfortunately, it's apples and oranges.
Being open-minded isn't... absolute is not... a merit when it's used to sneak in absurdist unsupported claims.
Imagine for a moment you're shopping for a new used car. You open the hood of a prospective model to find it has no engine. Nothing there to propel it what so ever. When you point this out to the salesman, he tells you "Don't be so close-minded" and goes on to explain that he believes by faith the car will (as soon as you give him money for it) miraculously sprout a divine engine which will never run out of gas.
Ready to put your money down? I can't imagine why not...
"Open mindedness" was meant to encourage helpful race & ethnic relations in the 90's... not as a mud ball for message board apologists to sling.
The rest were more of the same:
Let's review the Christians' showing on this thread so far. We'll start with Achilles because he was first to reply and his replies covered all the usual categories of dishonest response.
Tactic 1: Attempt to muddy the waters by demanding post-modernist explanations of "proof".Achilles12604:
Please define "proof".... Also elaborate as to whom this "proof" would apply.
let me remind you that if YOU are the individual whom the "proof" needs to convince
For those of us who are open minded
All it takes is a moment's thought to realize exactly how bankrupt this defense is.
Tomorrow, a burning bush appears on the White House lawn and begins speaking in a voice that everyone in the world hears simultaneously (even the deaf). It says, "I am He who spoke to Moses. Make peace amongst yourselves." If Achilles were honest, he'd have to ask himself, "Is this really proof?" He'd want to reserve judgement and really dig deep to find an explanation.
Do any of you really believe that's what Achilles (or any Christian) would do? No. They'd be trumpeting the news of Yahweh(sp?) to the heights of every tower and blog on the planet.
If any of the events in the gospel or the OT replayed themselves in front of cameras and eyewitnesses, we should hear people like Achilles asking, "Well, can that count as proof?" We all know they wouldn't.
Silly objection. Moving on.
Tactic 2: Shifting the burden of proof.
The second line of quoted comments is par from the course here and it's the sort of thing you may hear on a playground. It goes something like this:
Person 1: Something completely absurd and unproven is true.
Person 2: What evidence do you have to support your claim?
Person 1: Where is your evidence my claim is false?
Person 1 is obligated to support their claim. Person 2 is simply pointing to the lack of evidence and the status quo.
Joe: "Invisible flying monkeys are real and all around us right now."
Sally: "That's retarded. Monkeys can't fly or turn invisible. Where's your proof?"
Joe: "Can you prove they're NOT all around us?"
Sally is under no such obligation because it is Joe's responsibility to provide support for his claim.
It is up to Christians to prove their claim. All atheists need to do is demand proof and watch Christians twist, evade and fast talk.
Tactic 3: The pejorative claim of 'close-mindedness'.
Achilles indirectly implied that Christians are open minded... presumably because they've accepted the claims of their religion even with the overwhelming evidence of the rest of the world.
What drivel?
The 90's gave Western society & pop culture the idea that being open-minded towards other cultures and ethnicities is a good thing... while being close-minded is a bad thing. Christian apologists have used this tendency to imply their intellectually bankrupt claims are a badge of honor. "You don't believe what Christianity claims because you're close minded." Unfortunately, it's apples and oranges.
Being open-minded isn't... absolute is not... a merit when it's used to sneak in absurdist unsupported claims.
Imagine for a moment you're shopping for a new used car. You open the hood of a prospective model to find it has no engine. Nothing there to propel it what so ever. When you point this out to the salesman, he tells you "Don't be so close-minded" and goes on to explain that he believes by faith the car will (as soon as you give him money for it) miraculously sprout a divine engine which will never run out of gas.
Ready to put your money down? I can't imagine why not...
"Open mindedness" was meant to encourage helpful race & ethnic relations in the 90's... not as a mud ball for message board apologists to sling.
The rest were more of the same:
So, no. There is no credible evidence for god nor have any of the Christians here even attempted to provide any.otseng:
There's no way to prove that God exists.
(and then)
I've presented "one shred of evidence".
(but then)
Part of the problem is that the OP is not clear on what the topic of debate actually is. (LOL)
biker
What would you consider "proof"?
...
Faith is the substance (assurance) of things hoped for, the evidence (conviction) of things not seen.
Fisherking:
can you make a logical argument against God
...
And you have proof that God doesn't exist?
katiej49:
(A rambling post that ended with the unsupported assertion our emotions prove god... and several other off-topic comments... and let's not forget this last one:)
huh
-
Biker
proof
Post #36I would say the historical figure Jesus Christ of Nazareth is both "tangible" and "logical", as documented within the reliable record of the Bible.
Hundreds of detailed predictions were made of the "coming one", and they all converged in the life of Christ, this is "tangible".
One of the writers, John the Apostle, who was with Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry wrote in 1 John 1:1-4 "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
We have a tangible record about Jesus Christ who is God by those who were witness to the tangible God and wrote down an accurate record of the tangible God-man and what He said and did while on earth and walked around amongst us.
This is proof.
Biker
Hundreds of detailed predictions were made of the "coming one", and they all converged in the life of Christ, this is "tangible".
One of the writers, John the Apostle, who was with Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry wrote in 1 John 1:1-4 "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.
We have a tangible record about Jesus Christ who is God by those who were witness to the tangible God and wrote down an accurate record of the tangible God-man and what He said and did while on earth and walked around amongst us.
This is proof.
Biker
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20849
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 365 times
- Contact:
Post #37
Of course I'd have to disagree. The OP asked for "at least one logical argument" that is "tangible" and "logical". And I have already provided one thread, Nature's Destiny - Michael Denton. To counter that, you'd have to show that it is not tangible or not logical. Simply stating that it is not "credible evidence" is not sufficient.The Duke of Vandals wrote:There is no credible evidence for god nor have any of the Christians here even attempted to provide any.
-
Biker
Post #38
Duke,otseng wrote:Of course I'd have to disagree. The OP asked for "at least one logical argument" that is "tangible" and "logical". And I have already provided one thread, Nature's Destiny - Michael Denton. To counter that, you'd have to show that it is not tangible or not logical. Simply stating that it is not "credible evidence" is not sufficient.The Duke of Vandals wrote:There is no credible evidence for god nor have any of the Christians here even attempted to provide any.
I would tend to agree with the big O here, just saying
I read the Natures Destiny thread in its entirety and thought there to be compelling evidence there both tangible and credible. Also I presented evidence. So your claim is not valid.The Duke of Vandals wrote: There is no credible evidence for God nor have any of the Christians here even attempted to provide any.
Biker
-
The Duke of Vandals
- Banned
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:48 pm
Re: proof
Post #39We've already had several threads where the historocity of the gospel Jesus has been thoroughly and resoundingly debunked. There isn't a shred of credible evidence for the mythical godman. For further reading on the subject...Biker wrote:I would say the historical figure Jesus Christ of Nazareth is both "tangible" and "logical", as documented within the reliable record of the Bible.
jesuspuzzle.com
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bible And Christianity -- The Historical Origins
BibleOrigins
Ancient Jewish Accounts of Jesus
Christian Origins Blog
The Historical Jesus: Table of Contents of on-line class notes (RL 307)
The Mystery of The Testimonium of Josephus
Welcome to Enlightenment! Religion–the Tragedy of Mankind - Articles by Kenneth Humphreys
Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus -- Is It Reliable?
-
The Duke of Vandals
- Banned
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:48 pm
Post #40
First, Nature's Destiny is an argument in favor of intelligent design, not the Christian god. It really is remarkable how those two subjects can be used in conjunction or completely seperate seemingly at the whim of theists... a topic for another debate, that.otseng wrote:Of course I'd have to disagree. The OP asked for "at least one logical argument" that is "tangible" and "logical". And I have already provided one thread, Nature's Destiny - Michael Denton. To counter that, you'd have to show that it is not tangible or not logical.
Anyway, Denton's arguments are neither logical nor credible. They all rely on the same trite flaulty logic that is the fatal hallmark of ID: "We don't know how it got here so goddidit". This isn't evidence, my friend. This is an invention attempting to cover ignorance.
