Someone asked me to prove that God exists

[ardchoille]

I would like to give my advice on how to handle such a situation.

Short answer: Simply walk away.
Long answer: You can no more prove the existence of God to a closed-minded individual than you can prove the existence of a rainbow to a blind person.

Christians are to be as close to God as possible. God will never override free will so a Christian is not to override the free will of others. The main purpose of an argument is for each side to attempt to override the other. Since Christians are not to override the free will of others, Christians should not engage in arguing the bible. Teaching the bible, however, is a different matter entirely. The best course of action in a bible argument is to simply walk away.

Or, in a quote from my favorite movie, "the only winning move is not to play".

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Do you believe in right or wrong?
Good and Bad?
Just and unjust?

Where do those thoughts come from?

 

[Pizzaguy]

Yea, I've encountered this before - where someone insists that I PROVE God exists.

The only retort I can offer is twofold:

1) I can't prove He exists, and that must be the way He wants it - otherwise He'd reveal Himself in such a way we would not be arguing.
2) There are many things we can't PROVE, otherwise there would be no arguing about Global Warming, existence of aliens, who shot JFK, what democrats and republicans REALLY stand for, evolution or a million other things that are argued every day.

"Walk away" actually sounds pretty good to me!

 

[ardchoille]

Yea, I've encountered this before - where someone insists that I PROVE God exists.

The only retort I can offer is twofold:

1) I can't prove He exists, and that must be the way He wants it - otherwise He'd reveal Himself in such a way we would not be arguing.
2) There are many things we can't PROVE, otherwise there would be no arguing about Global Warming, existence of aliens, who shot JFK, what democrats and republicans REALLY stand for, evolution or a million other things that are argued every day.

"Walk away" actually sounds pretty good to me!

Yes, a closed minded person is going to think what they want regardless of our words or actions. I felt it was better to avoid wasting my time rather than being baited into an argument that wouldn't have any lasting effects.

 

[Milk-Drops]

If I'm in a discussion, the question of whether someone can prove God is actually pretty rare. Personally, unless God is used to answer a specific science question or used to justify something, then I'll ask why would your God have any impact on the argument, then I would delve into the existence Of God if God is the central part of the argument. I don't see a point over arguing about the existence of God in general unless point blank asked if I believe. That is just my stance in real life. forums are differnt because we all come to a forum for the point of discussion.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Do you believe in right or wrong?
Good and Bad?
Just and unjust?

Where do those thoughts come from?

Actually this doesn't prove or show God at all. This would just show the source of where someone draws their influence on morality from.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Do you believe in right or wrong?
Good and Bad?
Just and unjust?

Where do those thoughts come from?

Actually this doesn't prove or show God at all. This would just show the source of where someone draws their influence on morality from.

And if we had no one to draw it from, would we still know?

 

[Milk-Drops]

And if we had no one to draw it from, would we still know?

I really don't want to derail this thread. All I'm going to say, is that morality can have serveral sources. Not believing in the Christian God does not invalidate moral systems that don't base themselves off of Christianity. Morality, in itself doesn't even need to be absolute, but based off something or a reason. That is all morality really is.

 

[Mike S]

And if we had no one to draw it from, would we still know?

I really don't want to derail this thread. All I'm going to say, is that morality can have serveral sources. Not believing in the Christian God does not invalidate moral systems that don't base themselves off of Christianity. Morality, in itself doesn't even need to be absolute, but based off something or a reason. That is all morality really is.

Immanuel Kant tried to describe how morality can be based on something other than objective truths, something other than a supreme being, so he talked about catagorical imperatives. He faied, what he described ws still moral relativism.

 

[Brother Mike]

Christians are to be as close to God as possible. God will never override free will so a Christian is not to override the free will of others. The main purpose of an argument is for each side to attempt to override the other. Since Christians are not to override the free will of others, Christians should not engage in arguing the bible.

Amazing, and a new Poster also. Now that is cool.

Mike.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Immanuel Kant tried to describe how morality can be based on something other than objective truths, something other than a supreme being, so he talked about catagorical imperatives. He faied, what he described ws still moral relativism.

To be quite honest, the whole moral relativism thing doesn't even matter, because way all moral systems are protected and enforced is through a type of force. Morality is relative to who you have to answer to. For instance, to get me to agree to fallow Christian morality with all its laws, rules, etc. you'd have to demonstrate that the source exists and how the source will enforce the charges of morality. If God can't be shown to exist in a way that is demonstrable, but other sources can be shown to be demonstrable, I'm more likely to side with demonstrable forces.

 

[Mike S]

Immanuel Kant tried to describe how morality can be based on something other than objective truths, something other than a supreme being, so he talked about catagorical imperatives. He faied, what he described ws still moral relativism.

To be quite honest, the whole moral relativism thing doesn't even matter, because way all moral systems are protected and enforced is through a type of force. Morality is relative to who you have to answer to. For instance, to get me to agree to fallow Christian morality with all its laws, rules, etc. you'd have to demonstrate that the source exists and how the source will enforce the charges of morality. If God can't be shown to exist in a way that is demonstrable, but other sources can be shown to be demonstrable, I'm more likely to side with demonstrable forces.

Totalitarian secular states must be very comforting to you. You don't have to worry about what you're "more likely to side with."

What you do have to worry about is any permanent sense of right and wrong, and any value as an individual made in the image of God . When God and objective truth doesn't exist, and man alone - the man with the power to enforce, in your view - is the final arbitor of right and wrong, your life is ultimately of no value except as it serves the system. 'Without God, everything is permissable' and moral relativism ends in servility and self-negation, as Arthur Koestler so ably discusses in Darkness at Noon. But, Rubishov certainly had no doubt who enforced morality in his world and who he was "more likely to side with."

 

[Milk-Drops]

Totalitarian secular states must be very comforting to you.

And now the conversation is over. :toofunny

 

[ardchoille]

Perhaps "simply walk away" was the better choice after all?

 

[Infinity]

The only time I do ask someone to prove that God exist is when they state that he does exist, like that is the truth. Otherwise I don't have much of a problem with just the believe (as long it doesn't go to the extreme). I know that some people need to find some crutch about things they don't know about.

 

[Aardverk]

... The best course of action in a bible argument is to simply walk away....

"Argument" - Yes.
'Discussion' - Please don't.

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15[NIV]​

My emphasis - of course.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

If morality is a force, then what is that force?

 

[Mike S]

If morality is a force, then what is that force?

If the fundamental source of morality is a secular society the force behind it is the power of state to punish. You do what is deemed right because you have to, and don't do what is wrong in order to avoid punishment.

If the fundamental source of morality is our Judeo-Christian God, the force behind it is our desire for holy righteousness, a desire to be in a loving relationship with God. It's analogous to doing what is right and loving for your spouse because you want to rather than because you have to. If a Christian doesn't understand that he can easily lose his faith.

A moral system based on man's will is necessarily relative, there is no basis for universal morality if it's not based on a transcendant being. And, it's not possible, for instance, to condemn the happening of the holocaust if the force behind the morality is just one of many powerful states...even if that force is what, to some, demonstrable.

 

[Artie]

'Without God, everything is permissable'

For people without logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, trust, pride, altruism, love, duty, responsibility, respect, dignity, conscience, a sense of obligation, the Golden Rule, morals and ethics etc. everything is permissible. So how do we stop these people from doing immoral things? Just write a book explaining to them the difference between right and wrong and have them believe it comes from a god to give them incentive to live accordingly. Problem solved.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

'Without God, everything is permissable'

For people without logic, reason and common sense, empathy, compassion, trust, pride, altruism, love, duty, responsibility, respect, dignity, conscience, a sense of obligation, the Golden Rule, morals and ethics etc. everything is permissible. So how do we stop these people from doing immoral things? Just write a book explaining to them the difference between right and wrong and have them believe it comes from a god to give them incentive to live accordingly. Problem solved.

Except that you are totally wrong.
People know right from wrong without being told, without being taught.
How about answering my question in post #18?