Anyone got proof of God

[nine dog war]

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.

[Biker]

I believe the document itself is proof.

Biker

And that is still a circularity?

You obviously haven't learned that.

Bernee,
You obviously haven't learned, they are all circular, or just plain inadequate.
So the question really should be: Is your test for truth, adequate?

Biker

[katiej49]

I believe the document itself is proof.

Biker

And that is still a circularity?

You obviously haven't learned that.

Bernee,
You obviously haven't learned, they are all circular, or just plain inadequate.
So the question really should be: Is your test for truth, adequate?

Biker

Biker, you brought up a good question. What would be an adequate test for proof or evidence for someone seeking to find out the truth? blessings!

[Cogitoergosum]

Hello all,

It is my intention to show empirical evidence using the scientific method to show the existence of a god and maybe in latter post's to show the difference between the Christian's God and all the other gods that society has produced. I will show only one proof of evidence per post. I encourage anyone to refute my subject matter and I am open to peer review. As goes the scientific method I will quote the descriptions from Wikipedia:

Purpose of this particular post is to show certain biological functions cannot happen with out a higher being or designer. This proof must point to a god of some sorts. Specifically, I will examine blood and its clotting process.

Observation: ("A constant feature of scientific inquiry.") The following quote is from http://library.thinkquest.org/C0115080/?c=clotting#How. "When you get a cut or bruise, your blood exposed to the air will clot. The clot seals the wound to prevent excessive blood loss while at the same time preventing foreign invasive particles from entering your bloodstream."

Description: ("Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).") The following is quoted from the previous stated website. "When blood vessels are severed/damaged, the enzyme thrombokinase is secreted by the damaged tissues and blood platelets in the bloodstream. Thrombokinase converts the prothrombin which a soluble protein in the bloodstream into thrombin. Calcium ions must be present before this can take place. Thrombin is an enzyme that catalyses soluble fibrinogen into a network of insoluble fibrin over the wound. Other essential elements that include the presence of vital minerals and vitamins (i.e. vitamin K)"

Prediction: ("Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.") A sufficient prediction can be drawn from the presented facts.
--Given the evolutionary process is time driven and takes many different mutations to derive a change to the physiological make-up of a life form it must be presented that the conception of blood clots must have happened on the first try not several million trys down the road. The reasoning is that a life form cannot survive without being able to create a blood clot.-- Assuming that it was not created by something at one setting would be to say that the fittest could not survive because it did not have the basic of the basic survival capabilities. Ergo, the beginning of the species will also be its end.

Control: ("Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.") Argumentatively, our present day blood should be used as a control basis. Any other alterations to our blood that would give us clotting capabilities have never been observed thus they would be deemed unscientific.

As a physician i have to take a crack at this, it is very amusing to see christians hanging on to anything, and showing that they understand nothing when it comes to evolution.

1/ first fallacy: you are assuming that a clotting pathway that did not have all its constituants does not work which is not true, i'll explain it later
2/ second fallcy: yo are assuming that species jumped from no clotting factor to a full cascade of the clotting factors that exist today. Our clotting cascade could just be an evolution of a previous more primitve less efficient cascade that you do not see in our species anymore.
3/ third fallcay is to immediately assume that god is behind it and nothing else
4/ fourth fallcay is trying to equate that god with the god of the bible.

Back to point one: fibrinogen: there are people whith dysfibrogenemias (altered fibrinogen), some of those dysfibrogenemias cause bleeding, some of them cause thrombosis (clots) but they still function. So to say you had to get the gene right from the first time is wrong.
Some people lack coagulation factors: like lacking factor 8 or 9 commonly known as hemophylics, they are more predisposed to having hematomas but they still function. People with platelet disorders glanzeman thrombastenia and bernard soulier syndrome can still function long enough to reproduce and we still see people with these disorders.
People with altered genes and lacking certain genes that are involved in the clotting pathway can still function, so to say that the specie would die is absolutely wrong. If you think that the vertebrate common ancestor had the same clotting pathway you have now, you are again wrong. Fibrinogen or whatever other factor would have been an improvement over whatever pathway was being used and thus made its pocessor fittest and the gene survived.
your guy saying that is just throwing red herrings.

Any other alterations to our blood that would give us clotting capabilities have never been observed thus they would be deemed unscientific

Really? how about factor 5 leiden mutation, how about protein C and S deficency, how about antithrombin 3 deficiency...All these alterations to our blood make it more prone to clotting than normal. What did this guy mean by that?

[otseng]

Well, you might be surprised to find out that Denton did not start off writing the book with having a designer in mind. It was only as he was writing the book did it become a book in natural theology.

That's an odd one. So, did he start off trying to write a book having something else in mind, and noticed "hey! this book is doing a great job of showing a designer" and turned it into that?

He started off writing the book "to present the scientific evidence for believing that that the cosmos is uniquely fit for life as it exists on earth". And as he researched more, he saw where the evidence lead to and resulted in the second aim of the book, "that this 'unique fitness' of the laws of nature for life is entirely consistent with the older teleological religious concept of the cosmos as a specially designed whole".

He simply took his original thoughts to the next logical step. No appeal to any religious texts. No appeal to faith. All based on verifiable scientific data.

I love when you Christians abandon your particular claims of god in attempt to prove any god... as though the deist god or Zeus also died for our sins. It's a horrible way for you to argue as we all know (by virtue of the fact you're a Christian) gods are not interchangeable. Don't argue lazy, my friend. Argue for your god or not at all.

Actually, it is you that is changing the topic. The OP says nothing about having to show evidence for a "Christian" god.

Further, one needs to accept the existence of any generic god first, before going on to debating the characteristics of that god. If you believe in a god, we can than discuss further in a separate thread on what that god is like.

[McCulloch]

This is evidence that it has been preserved well. That does not make it inerrant.

Your such a humorist, at least its never boring.

That would be you're not your. Damn! Why can't I be funny when I try to be funny?

I would say that folks still place great value in it, because they recognize what it is.

That is your opinion. It apparently is an opinion shared by many. However, it is still just opinion, unless there are some facts to back it up.

It is very well preserved, and still the source of truth.

Here you couple two ideas, apparently trying to impute the truth value of the first onto the second. I have no argument with the fact that the Bible is well preserved, perhaps not quite so well preserved as the Qu'ran, but quite well preserved. However, your claim that it is and was a source of truth is still without evidential support.

Why, because it tells the truth in all it talks about, the primary subject being, Jesus.

Kind of like begging the question. It tells the truth about Jesus because anything we might know about Jesus comes from the Bible.

I believe the document itself is proof.

Proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. Please show us how any document can be its own proof. I thought that you were doing better when you claimed that the Holy Spirit was your proof for the Bible's truth.

[melikio]

I sincerely believe you see no problem with '1+1=4'. The problem is '1+1=4' is still a lie.

No Duke, I simply realize that whether YOU think or believe something is a lie or not, does not eliminate the (often nebulous) processes by which individuals DECIDE what is true/false and right/wrong.

That to me is the related pinnacle of human contentions throughout this world. It's NOT that the absolute truth is unimportant to me, but that the manner in which human beings interact with one another (despite what they believe they know) is mutually "beneficial" overall.

It remains true (in general), that it's not what a person may possess which makes them more helpful or worthwhile, but how they utilize that which they wield. I'd rather be treated by a loving sinner, than a merciless religious zealot who believes they speak for God Himself. They may certainly know many true things, but that doesn't stop them from SUCKING as a human being. Pick anything you will, put it in the hands of a human being... and the HEART of that human being will "temper" the outcome. That's not unimportant; nor is the truth itself.

I've know atheists and born-again believers who were/are a-holes; and I want NOTHING to do with either type of person (despite the reality I face them almost daily).

-Mel-

[Cogitoergosum]

He started off writing the book "to present the scientific evidence for believing that that the cosmos is uniquely fit for life as it exists on earth". And as he researched more, he saw where the evidence lead to and resulted in the second aim of the book, "that this 'unique fitness' of the laws of nature for life is entirely consistent with the older teleological religious concept of the cosmos as a specially designed whole".
He simply took his original thoughts to the next logical step. No appeal to any religious texts. No appeal to faith. All based on verifiable scientific data.

This is another misconception widely upheld that i feel i need to say something.
Who said that this set of physics laws is the only set that can produce life? Have you modeled universes with different sets of physics, and you found out that none of them can support life? it might not support a life similar to what exists now, but there still could be a different life there. you could have been an octopus with eight arms and a set of bat wings with the eyes of a hawk and you would have been thinking then "i'm so well designed and efficient that surely a god created me, look at all those physics laws all tuned for me"
Another misconception is that the universe is tuned for life, it is the other way around, life adapts itself to the universe it is in.
The polar ice caps were not made to fit polar bears, polar bears evolved to survive the polar ice caps. The cactus did not make the desert, the cactus was among the few other things that can grow in such conditions. And if you ever find a planet who's air is of methane and there is life there, i'll bet a million dollars these organism use methane in their cycle. if there were intelligent beings on that planet they would wonder how on methania (the planet's name: lol) could there be lifeforms breathing oxygen.

[katiej49]

Would yall like for there to be a God? what would you want Him to be like? what would you expect from Him? What do you think He might expect of you? What do you think He should do in the world as far as fixing all the crud going on? Thanks[/b]

[melikio]

Would yall like for there to be a God?

Katie, what would you "like" for unbelievers to believe?

Again, I'll imply the same thing to you, that I just did to an atheist:

There is proof and evidence of many things. Still, to individual human beings, there is a process of being "convinced" that whatever things they have considered are true/false.

For one who has accepted "X" as true as opposed to "Y", their perspectives will differ from those who have accepted or found something else to be true. Even those who have "faith", do not believe in ALL things or in the same ways. If I asked 1000 atheists the same you asked, I would/should get individual answers, even if what makes those answers unique are very nuanced. People and their views of reality DIFFER, no matter what they've been taught or told. Just a cursory glance at the sheer numbers of "Christian" denominations points that out clearly enough.

I believe there is something spiritual and universal at the core of human beings, but I'd never PUSH the idea, as I trust that something so important is revealed to those who really need to know that. It is a process, not some perfect argument that brings a person to understand those things which lean toward spirituality. And all too often, religious people are willing to PUSH others toward those (spiritual) things, when God's providence is what is truly responsible for the same.

-Mel-

[otseng]

it might not support a life similar to what exists now, but there still could be a different life there. you could have been an octopus with eight arms and a set of bat wings with the eyes of a hawk and you would have been thinking then "i'm so well designed and efficient that surely a god created me, look at all those physics laws all tuned for me"

Denton is not talking about current animals that might look different. His argument is much different than that.

Another misconception is that the universe is tuned for life, it is the other way around, life adapts itself to the universe it is in.

Actually, the main problem is how to explain it before life got started. Natural selection only applies to life, not non-life.