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.

[Goat]

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.

"Tangible" as a standard isn't serious, for we cannot touch Julius Caesar, or Abraham Lincoln, or the neutrino, yet we accept their existence, and on nothing but authority. For "logical," I refer you to my two posts to bernee. As far as "proof," I assume by that you mean empirical proof. I am, however, convinced that an empirical methodology is completely inapposite to an inquiry about God's existence. Here's why...

The rational mind moves from ends to means. That is, it first decides what it wants to do before it decides how it is going to do it. For instance, let's consider a hypothetical. Let's say an inquiring mind from the ancient world decides to learn for himself whether massive but as yet legendary sea creatures called "whales" really exist. If he were then to adjourn to his parlor to study a topographical map of a landlocked country in Europe, one would have to conclude that he had not chosen a rational methodology, a rational means, to accomplish his stated end. If a man wants to learn whether whales exist, he goes to the sea, he does not stare at a map of a landlocked country on the wall and insist that since he uses that map successfully for all his land lavigation it must also be appropriate for this question. In other words, a rational mind tailors his methodology to suit the particular object of his inquiry.

On the question of whether God exists, the rational mind would never conclude that empirical standards would serve as a proper methodology because the object of this inquiry is, first and foremost, non-material. Looking back to our hypothetical, certain assumptions have to be made about the object of your inquiry before you begin. As in the case of whales, you would assume it is big, and that it is an animal and not a vegetable or a mineral; moreover it would be a solid, and not a gas or a liquid. Without these assumptions, it simply isn't a genuine inquiry about whales.

More importantly, the inquirer would have to ask in his inquiry about God, "What would God be if God exists, and what would God be in relation to me or to any human inquirer?" God would be, if God exists, an ontological superior to the human inquirer. God, in order to be God, would not have to answer to the standards or judgments of a human inquirer. God, not man, would set the terms of inquiry along with everything else. Man would be accountable to God, not the reverse, if God exists, and in every way: ontologically, intellectually, and morally. This is an entirely different state of affairs for a human inquiry than with any other kind of human inquiry.

My point here is that any human inquiry regarding God that begins with the assumption that the human inquirer is "the standard setter," the "judge", or is himself the ultimate reference point of truth, would, from the nature of the case, be a fundamentally flawed methodology. This is what makes this a sui generis inquiry: you could only hope to succeed if you approach its object on your knees.

Soli Deo gloria,

Robert

PS. Please consider that a man who looks at a map on the wall to answer the question of the existence of whales would hardly be one to judge whether any other party is "stark, raving mad."

Except of course, we have a lot more evidence. For one, when it comes to Julius Caesar, we have a lot more contemporary sources for Julius Caesar'ss, including his burial site, dozens of records from him , testimony from dozens upon dozens of sources that are relatively unbiased, AND we take all the supernatural claims about Julius Caesar with high skepticism. We take all the claims of him being God , and whose divinity was proclaimed by a comet as stories.

As for Abraham Lincoln, we have photos, we have his body.. and we have reports from hundreds of news papers that are unrelated to each other about his activities.

So, you are building one massive 'straw man' there.

[Zzyzx]

.

I therefore call upon you to repent of your sins--including denying the God you obviously rely on in your argumentation to be there--and to lay down your arms and embrace the terms of peace He offers you in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Do so and you will not only have forgiveness in Him, and life eternal, but finally have a basis to believe in the objective logic and objective morality whose reality you already give testimony to by your every utterance.

.
Delivering a sermon in a debate forum is an unwelcome form of “spam”. Spamming for god is no more legitimate than spamming for viagra – neither is appropriate in email or in debate forums regardless of what is being promoted.

Let’s discuss the topic – which is “Anyone got proof of god?” Can you offer PROOF that any one of the thousands of gods promoted by humans does, indeed, exist?

[Cathar1950]

I realize your post was addressed to Bernee and I am sure he has his own take on your post but I like to butt in especially when it concerns a view of the universe that presupposes Bernee’s view, and mine for that matter, is wrong because we don’t idealize your presuppositions.

Bernee,

Interestingly these 'chemical events' power a nervous system which underpins, in the case of we humans, a self aware consciousness. This consciousness is evolving. One of the mechanism which influences this evolution is enlightened self interest. Reason is a sub set of enlightened self interest…
What can you point to as support for your obviously firm belief that the chemical events that gave rise to these thoughts of yours are more "true" or "logical," or have any more significance than the chemical events that gave rise to your last bowel movement? What makes them more real and less a fantasy than the chemical events that produced your last dream?

Chemical events are just a part of the nervous system and all that goes on in the phenomena of conscious and self-consciousness or even awareness and unconscious or biological phenomena. You have misrepresented what Bernee said by focusing on some vague notion of the primacy of chemical dominance you imagine. Everything may break down into chemical, electrical and physical events but no one here, at least not to my knowledge, thinks that is all there is as we see these things in processes and even a reference to a nervous system or bowel movement are more complex then just chemicals.
Do you really think that the chemical events in the brain are the same for a bowl movement? Granted they are chemical events but is that all that is going one? Even the digestive system is more complicated then you mind want to admit without some notion you have of God needed to make sense out of the processes and functions of even the most humble of organisms or organs. You seem to think you have to have God for there to be meaning. How would you know that you need it if you can’t imagine not having it? It seems to you an impossibility as you reject our ability to use language and meaning without the presumption of your view of God. How is it possible for you to know you need this ultimate ground of being or what ever you might want to project, if it is the presumed foundation? Why do you think you need God to know the difference between a dream, bowl movement or consciousness? Are you having trouble making distinctions with your claiming God must exist?

[SmellsLikeLife]

One argument that I find convincing for God's existence is the existence of life. No matter how hard they try, scientists have not found or been able to artificiate life from nonliving matter.

Of course, if someone has evidence otherwise, a link would be all that is required.

If spontaneous generation, which was disproved first by Louis Pasteur, is impossible, then how does life exist?

There are only two possiblities: God exists, or he doesn't.

Also, regarding the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: God created life, or life came from non-life. If it is impossible for life to come from non-life, that leaves us with God creating life.

Responses and debate are, as always, more than appreciated.

Smells Like Life

[LittlePig]

One argument that I find convincing for God's existence is the existence of life. No matter how hard they try, scientists have not found or been able to artificiate life from nonliving matter.

Of course, if someone has evidence otherwise, a link would be all that is required.

If spontaneous generation, which was disproved first by Louis Pasteur, is impossible, then how does life exist?

There are only two possiblities: God exists, or he doesn't.

Also, regarding the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: God created life, or life came from non-life. If it is impossible for life to come from non-life, that leaves us with God creating life.

Responses and debate are, as always, more than appreciated.

Smells Like Life

Not knowing how something happened or came to be is not the same thing as proving or even suggesting that it happened or came to be by any god. This is the regular, humongous non sequitur that creationists never seem to get tired of committing.

Abiogenesis (spontaneous generation of life) is not actually a core part of evolutionary theory. And it has only received superficial investigation because we have no particularly good way of investigating it. We can only theorize about processes and early Earth environments, and if it did happen, what unlikely fossil evidence that would have been left would be terribly difficult to recognize as anything more than particle 'noise.' Life could have arisen by itself either here on Earth, or it could have arisen on some other planet and seeded the Earth with some basic organic molecules that got the process going. There are lots of possibilities and very few ways of investigating them.

But if you are impatient and want to jump to God as THE answer, stop off at the E.T. explanations first. A very advanced civilization could have sparked life off on this planet for any number of good sci-fi plot reasons. They at least wouldn't require supernatural physics.

[SmellsLikeLife]

Not knowing how something happened or came to be is not the same thing as proving or even suggesting that it happened or came to be by any god.

I agree with this statement.

Life could have arisen by itself either here on Earth

No, it couldn't. That's my point.

...or it could have arisen on some other planet and seeded the Earth with some basic organic molecules that got the process going.

This is the same argument as the previous quote. Life cannot come from non-life, no matter if on Earth or another planet.

There are lots of possibilities and very few ways of investigating them.

What are these possibilies you speak of? No sarcasm intended, whatsoever.

Thank you for your replies, LittlePig. I would be even more grateful if you reply again.

Sincerely,
Personal Penguin

[LittlePig]

SmellsLikeLife

No, it couldn't. That's my point.

That's something you don't know, and I know you don't know it. You may not know you don't know it, but that's ok, cuz I know it.

This is the same argument as the previous quote. Life cannot come from non-life, no matter if on Earth or another planet.

And you know this kinda like you know there is a god?

What are these possibilies you speak of? No sarcasm intended, whatsoever.

When in doubt, start with Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Cathar1950]

This is the same argument as the previous quote. Life cannot come from non-life, no matter if on Earth or another planet.

It is always possible that the distinction between living and non-living might be arbitrary.
What we call life might be a manifestation or expression of an emergent quality of matter which given its atomic and subatomic properties it is hardly inert. Why don’t you think life can’t come from non-life? It apparently has, unless your going to special plead with God and claim God is living you still have to account for God to make such a claim.
It might be that everything is living in a sense and what we call life is simply in a complex way an emergent property of matter and needs no more explanation then matter energy, space, time or the laws of physics. If God is somehow outside all of this then it needs to be explained as to what that could mean and how God could be outside the universe where the universe by definition includes everything. Unless you’re going to claim God is nothing (or no-thing) then I don’t know how you can reasonable claim that life can not come from non-life (depending on what you mean by life and non-life) as it is seemly here. Is there really such a thing as nothing (or no-thing)? I guess you can always fall back on some vague notion of spirit, breath or wind as metaphor but are they also nothing and if not then what are they? How do you explain something outside of the universe where all reason and analogy are of no vale or even attempt to prove it?

[Zzyzx]

.

Life could have arisen by itself either here on Earth

No, it couldn't. That's my point.

...or it could have arisen on some other planet and seeded the Earth with some basic organic molecules that got the process going.

This is the same argument as the previous quote. Life cannot come from non-life, no matter if on Earth or another planet.

Because you or others do not understand how something happened does NOT prove that "goddidit". That is the "god of the gaps" argument (fill in whatever is unknown with gods) that leads to "shrinking gods" as knowledge increases.

It may be wise to simply say, "We don't know how life originated" rather than saying "We don't know so goddidit". It is not of critical importance in our life to know the origin of life or of the universe. If we never know for sure how they came to be, our real life will not be affected.

There is no evidence that gods did anything at all. One god claim is as valid or invalid as any other god claim since there is no reason to believe that any are true. Personal opinion, conjecture, imagination, fables, writings and worship are characteristic of many hundreds or thousands of gods -- all with equal credibility (or lack thereof) except to the committed believer. Each “god” has (or had) worshipers who are / were convinced that the god was real. Several are currently popular, many have faded from popularity.

[AB]

It may be wise to simply say, "We don't know how life originated" rather than saying "We don't know so goddidit". It is not of critical importance in our life to know the origin of life or of the universe. If we never know for sure how they came to be, our real life will not be affected.

This is the "elephant" in the skeptics room be ignored. You minimize the creation of God. But at the same time you can only suggest something occurred from nothing. Now THAT is the weak and fantasy opinion.

And you way simplify "We don't know so goddidit". You totally misrepresent creation with this statement. For one, there is no "We don't know..so" If you are going to speak for the non-skeptic, please get closer to the reality.