Show me the proof??

[prough91]

My thoughts on this are more we haven't seen the supernatural manifest itself physically yet so why would the end of the world be any different? I have reason to believe that the world will end by physical means and we will all stand before 'God' at that time if he 'exists'. I also wonder if 'Jesus' is reigning as we speak but that is merely a matter of opinion.

Jesus is reigning, or should be, in the hearts of every believer. Which makes me wonder how many "Christians" are really allowing Christ to reign in their hearts. If every "Christian" did love their neighbors as themselves, don't you agree the world would probably be a little better place? The problem with religion and "Christians", in my opinion, is they look so much like the world, why would the world want to be like them?

 

[Hugo]

I fail to understand how the burden of proof is on me. For one, I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone so that I would need to back up this force with evidence. I can share my beliefs and if you reject them based on lack of evidence, that is your issue, not mine. I feel no burden to "prove" God to you because I don't even require proof for myself.

"Burden of proof" is a concept of the legal system. It is a good general rule for arguments. I don't mean that you have a burden to prove God to me. Only you would know that. But if you are making the claim of a deity, then it must be backed up with evidence for it to be of any value to someone else. I'm not saying that you must provide evidence to me. I'm not you're boss. What I'm saying is that claiming something exists on blind faith is basically pointless. You shouldn't expect anyone else to accept it unless you actually provide a reason to.

I disagree that there is "strong evidence" against belief in deities. Even if you could prove to me that chemicals in the brain cause us to believe in a deity, I would say that those chemicals were God-ordained.

That's actually weak evidence. There is no evidence to support any of Christianity's supernatural claims, which demolishes that set of beliefs. So it is for every religion. It's not hard to get from there to realizing that the concept of a deity is nonsensical. There is very strong evidence against theistic deities, but you must avail yourself of it.

By the way, I think you should know that you are wasting your time trying to debate with me over the matter of God's existence. I've explained this at length in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=41577

I simply want to promote rational thought. Get people to question things. I was a devout Christian for about 20 years, so I am passionate about it. Everyone should be open to new data. Do you think that Muslims should be open to Christianity?

 

[seekandlisten]

Jesus is reigning, or should be, in the hearts of every believer. Which makes me wonder how many "Christians" are really allowing Christ to reign in their hearts. If every "Christian" did love their neighbors as themselves, don't you agree the world would probably be a little better place? The problem with religion and "Christians", in my opinion, is they look so much like the world, why would the world want to be like them?

I agree with your last statement here. I often think of Ghandi's quote, which I will point out is often misused by 'christians' trying to make a point as they forget the last part of it. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Ghandi also said, "An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching." And one more that applies to this topic, "All the religions of the world, while they may differ in other respects, unitedly proclaim that nothing lives in this world but Truth." Not to start quote mining here but some good points raised by someone who a lot of 'christians' write off.

 

[seekandlisten]

Would you agree with the statement that the 'evidence' of 'God' in us can only be seen through our 'works'?

I would agree that God works through His followers.

Don't take this as personal, but aren't you sidestepping the question I asked? 'God' does indeed work through his followers but the problem arises when people misinterpret in their heads what 'God's work' is. We are taught in the bible that 'faith without works is dead' so back to my question of what works are we portraying? This is the only 'evidence' of 'God' that non believers are looking at.

 

[seekandlisten]

Just a thought on this statement. It is simply not possible to describe a 'deity'. So wouldn't it be more accurate to say there is 'strong evidence' against beliefs held or religious doctrines more than the 'deity' itself? The reality to claiming that a 'deity' is responsible for what we don't know is the same as saying we simply don't know just a 'shift in words'.

There is incredibly strong evidence against all religions, and each one of them has no evidence whatsoever. There is also evidence that their deities do not exist. For each religion, it depends on how they define their deity as to how you can approach it and assess whether it's true. Once you realize that religion is nonsensical (as you seem to), that leaves you with deism or pantheism or whatever. You might think it's a shift in words, but that's because you're starting to realize that a deity is simply superfluous. It adds nothing.

I used to think that athiesm was really just another religion in the sense as why does one need to associate with a certain term just because they don't believe in something. Since talking to athiests and reading certain works by athiests I have come to realize there are those that have merit to holding their position as an athiest and those that claim to be athiests but use it as a 'religion' and more or less are just out to attack those who don't believe their opinions. Would you say this is true or am I missing something here?

I primarily think of myself as a rationalist. It identifies my philosophy more. Atheism pertains to a single belief. I could be an atheist and be a totally irrational idiot. However, obviously there is this "New Atheist" movement which I think is mostly good, but I don't understand latching onto the term Atheist so strongly.

I think you're identifying a lot of the semantic difficulties. It comes down to personal preference mostly.

I just wanted to say that you raise some interesting points. Thank you.

 

[Ed the Ned]

Why does an unbeliever not try and seek God instead of seeking evidence of God?

 

[JoJo]

Note to Hugo: I'm sorry. I won't be debating you or conversing with you further. It is a waste of both your time and mine. But I will leave you with this thought:

You can tell me you were a "devout Christian" until you are blue in the face and I will not believe you. Either you are confused as to what being a Christian is really about or you truly were born again and have "backslidden" for lack of a better word.

Would you agree with the statement that the 'evidence' of 'God' in us can only be seen through our 'works'?

I would agree that God works through His followers.

Don't take this as personal, but aren't you sidestepping the question I asked? 'God' does indeed work through his followers but the problem arises when people misinterpret in their heads what 'God's work' is. We are taught in the bible that 'faith without works is dead' so back to my question of what works are we portraying? This is the only 'evidence' of 'God' that non believers are looking at.

This is off-topic.

 

[seekandlisten]

This is off-topic.

I thought it was relevant as it refers to this 'evidence' we speak of. Anyways I hope you didn't take my comments as directed towards you personally I am merely trying to understand the 'christian' side of the argument. You are one who speaks on that side so while you may hold beliefs different then other 'christians' you may help in my understanding the position of 'christianity' better. Thanks for your input.

 

[seekandlisten]

Why does an unbeliever not try and seek God instead of seeking evidence of God?

I'm not sure if this question is directed for me or just in general but I'll present my opinion. I'm not an 'unbeliever' but I can understand their position. This goes with the question I had asked JoJo in regards to our works being the only 'evidence' of 'God'. For an unbeliever looking in, what do they see? I personally believe in 'God' yet I can't subscribe to 'religion' because of what is 'evidenced' from it. Sure I know that their are 'true' believers in all walks of life, but when the 'evidence' I see of 'God' comes from all 'religions', atheists, and those who don't believe 'anything' so to speak, I wonder if any of it really makes sense. Everyone has their own personal philosophy that they live by but does that mean we all have to believe the exact same thing when it refers to the supernatural world if the 'good' that 'God' represents is present everywhere and not limited to one single set of beliefs?

 

[JoJo]

This is off-topic.

I thought it was relevant as it refers to this 'evidence' we speak of. Anyways I hope you didn't take my comments as directed towards you personally I am merely trying to understand the 'christian' side of the argument. You are one who speaks on that side so while you may hold beliefs different then other 'christians' you may help in my understanding the position of 'christianity' better. Thanks for your input.

I see. Well, I guess when I think of evidence (when it comes to atheists demanding proof), I think of scientific or physical facts or whatever that could somehow prove God's existence. I don't get the feeling that atheists really care about the "evidence" of God working in people's lives...that kind of stuff tends to get chalked up to basic humanity, morality, coincidence, imagination, whatever.

 

[Hugo]

You can tell me you were a "devout Christian" until you are blue in the face and I will not believe you.

First you say that your position on God is immutable regardless of the evidence, and now you won't believe that I was a sincere Christian no matter what I say? I'm concerned that you are closing yourself off to protect your beliefs.

Either you are confused as to what being a Christian is really about or you truly were born again and have "backslidden" for lack of a better word.

Sure, it's possible that I have backslidden and will one day return to the Christian faith.

 

[Brokendoll]

It really is a way to shift the demand. If I ever say "prove God doesn't exist" it is simply a way of showing the opposition that proof does not factor into the equation; if he can't provide proof, he should not ask me to.

I don't want to make this personal as a more general discussion is a lot more interesting, and also less likely to make people feel offended.

All religions make the claim that there is a god or gods. Chistianity most definately does too. However, when a claim is made, "There is a god", the onus is on the one(s) making the claim to back that claim up with evidence. How could it be any different?

Now, I am well aware that disproving the existence of god is impossible, just as disproving the existence of ANYTHING is impossible. In philosophical terms, that is called "proving a negative" and it is by definition not possible to do. However, since the claim in this context was made by the religious, the onus is on them to provide the backing for their claim.

Now, if an atheist made the claim "There is definately no god", not only would he/she have to back that claim up, but he/she would be a very silly atheist indeed. We simply cannot know with absolute certainty. But that doesn't mean that the atheist would consider it a 50/50 chance either. There are lots of things we don't believe in, or even consider ourselves agnostic about. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that no-one believes in faeries, but we cannot with 100% certainty say that there are no faeries anywhere. That doesn't mean that we consider there to be a 50/50 chance of there actually being faeries.

But, if someone was to make the claim that there -are- in fact faeries, then I suppose everyone here would want to see some kind of evidence for that claim before they believed the person making the claim, as well they should. In the meantime, until such evidence can be provided, we simply go about our day as if faeries do not exist.

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Atheism does not claim that there is no god or gods anywhere, but simply that they do not believe in any.

 

[nada]

The Existence of God, glorified & exalted is He.


Though I haven’t seen the Creator, glorified & exalted is He, I believe in Him .It's inescapable to believe in Him, because I see the evidences of His existence in myself ,& in everywhere around me.
He has blessed every nation with sending an apostle from themselves, informing them about the essence of the Almighty, His attributes, & His purpose of creating them. { Messengers as bearers of good news as well as of warning in order that mankind should have no plea against Allâh after the (coming of) Messengers. And Allâh is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.} (Nissa, 165)

We know how the gravity announces its existence,& we (human) have discovered the laws which controls it. yet, the greatest scientists can not know the quiddity of gravity. So, why do we believe in its existence? Because we see the evidences of its existence everywhere. Likewise, electricity, wireless wave, electron, & spirit. Therefore, not seeing the object is not evidence that it doesn't exist.

Once, an atheist teacher addressed his students saying: "this chair exists because we see it. But, we don't see God. So, He doesn't exist" .One of the students said:" Are you sane, teacher?". "Yes" the teacher replied. "Did you see your brain?" the student asked. "No" he replied. Then the student said "How do you claim being sane?"
{ So the disbeliever was utterly defeated. And Allâh guides not the people, who are Zâlimûn (wrong-doers).}(2. 258)
Every one of us knows his tall, width, weight, & qualities. However, he knows nothing about his essence, his soul, & his spirit. It's a secret. Yet, it's more real than any reality. If man doesn't know his essence ,how does he claim the knowledge of God's essence, and a fortiori, how to deny it?![/size]

 

[Brokendoll]

The Existence of God, glorified & exalted is He.
Though I haven’t seen the Creator, glorified & exalted is He, I believe in Him .

Which is your choice obviously.

It's inescapable to believe in Him, because I see the evidences of His existence in myself ,& in everywhere around me.

I would be very interested in hearing about that evidence, preferably with references to the relevant research reports. Published and peer reviewed would be nice too. ;)

He has blessed every nation with sending an apostle from themselves, informing them about the essence of the Almighty, His attributes, & His purpose of creating them. { Messengers as bearers of good news as well as of warning in order that mankind should have no plea against Allâh after the (coming of) Messengers. And Allâh is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.} (Nissa, 165)

Well, as you are free to believe in him as you see fit as I am entitled to take my chances and -not- believe in him. I choose the former.

We know how the gravity announces its existence,& we (human) have discovered the laws which controls it. yet, the greatest scientists can not know the quiddity of gravity. So, why do we believe in its existence? Because we see the evidences of its existence everywhere. Likewise, electricity, wireless wave, electron, & spirit. Therefore, not seeing the object is not evidence that it doesn't exist.

And now you are mixing apples and elephants. The "spirit" does NOT belong in the same category as the others. We can calculate gravity, we can manipulate electricity (which is a stream of electrons, but I'm sure you knew that and that mentioning them in the same sentence was merely a typo... ;) ) and I can only assume that by "wireless wave" you mean electromagnetic radiation, which we can also, as the above, measure, manipulate and calculate.

How do you measure, manipulate or calculate the spirit?

Once, an atheist teacher addressed his students saying: "this chair exists because we see it. But, we don't see God. So, He doesn't exist" .One of the students said:" Are you sane, teacher?". "Yes" the teacher replied. "Did you see your brain?" the student asked. "No" he replied. Then the student said "How do you claim being sane?"
{ So the disbeliever was utterly defeated. And Allâh guides not the people, who are Zâlimûn (wrong-doers).}(2. 258)

Source or it didn't happen. I've seen this story (and variants of it) circulated around the net for years and no-body has been able to tell me who, where or when this was related to.

Also, if that teacher actually existed he would be a poor teacher indeed. If he knew anything about the world (i.e. science) he would know that there are plenty of things we cannot directly observe but which nevertheless very much exist.

Every one of us knows his tall, width, weight, & qualities. However, he knows nothing about his essence, his soul, & his spirit. It's a secret. Yet, it's more real than any reality. If man doesn't know his essence ,how does he claim the knowledge of God's essence, and a fortiori, how to deny it?![/size]

I do not claim to know gods "essence", whatever that is. I claim that I do not know, but that I personally have seen no reason to believe in Allah or any other deity. And I'm fine with that, thank you very much.

By the way, why is it a secret?

 

[Ed the Ned]

I have not read this thread in its entirety, forgive me. But, I have seen some comments that reflect the atheist creed. I would like to add my opinion. Firstly, I believe in Christ and the Gospel.

I am not asked to judge those outside the Church, yet I am asked to discern what is being taught and to remove myself from those who claim to be of Christ and teach a false gospel.

I would like to quote John MacArthur:

"Nothing in Scripture indicates the church should lure people into Christ by presenting Christianity as an attractive option....The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18). There is no way to make it otherwise and be faithful to the message..... The gospel itself is disagreeable, unattractive, repulsive and alarming to the world. It exposes sin, condemns pride, convicts the unbelieving heart, and shows human righteousness - even the best,most appealing aspects of human nature - to beworthless, defiled,filthy rags (cf Isaiah 64:6)"

Taking the above statement I do not see a need to try and prove or defend the Gospel to unbelieving and worldly wise men and women. Yes it is my duty to proclaim the Gospel to unbelievers and to spread the good news, but it is not my job to force feed something that is looked at as foolishness by unbelievers.

Those people who claim to have been Christian and now blatantly refute Christ and the Gospel never new the true Gospel. They were suckered into a false gospel that was not of God. The reason why the left their false gospel is that it did not satisfy their needs. It had nothing to do with repenting of their sins. Understanding the Gospel is understanding that firstly we are sinners.

I know I have written a bit much for one posting but I would like to add one last quote by Gary E Gilly.

The new gospel is a liberation from low self esteem, a freedom from emptiness and loneliness, a means of fulfillment and excitement, a way to receive our hearts desires, a means of meeting our needs. The old gospel is about God; The new gospel is about us. The old gospel is about sin; the new gospel is about needs. The old gospel is about our need for righteousness; the new gospel is about our need for fulfillment. The old gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing; the new gospel is attractive. Many are flocking to the new gospel but it is altogether questionable how many are actually being saved.

I pray my reply makes some sense!

 

[seekandlisten]

Ed,

While I tend to agree with some of what you posted I think we hold a different perception on what the 'new gospel' is.

I will point out that I disagree with the way John MacArthur puts his thoughts forward in that quote. I won't comment any further on it as I don't know the context in what he was saying but I would have to disagree with the gospel being 'disagreeable, unattractive, repulsive and alarming to the world.'

Your second quote of Gary E Gilly I could almost agree with but in the proper context I'm assuming that I would not as my definitions of the 'new' and 'old' gospel are probably quite different than his or yours. The 'old' gospel to me is the message proclaimed in the 4 gospels in the bible as well as I would add the gospel of Thomas with it as well. The message Jesus and his apostles proclaimed is the 'true' gospel. To me the 'new' gospel is when 'man' got his hands into the mix and 'distorted' the 'truth'.

In this present age the 'true believers' need to wake up and see what it really means to 'follow' Christ. As Joan of Arc once said, 'Act, and God will act' so we need to realize that we don't get 'something for nothing.' The 'kingdom of God' is like a 'seed' and it is scattered throughout the world. No one holds the 'copyright' on 'God' and we are to 'judge' for ourselves what is good and just.

 

[yepimonfire]

there is tons of evidence leading to a creator, just look at how complex the human body is, saying it could randomly evolve out of time breaks several scientific laws and is about as logical as saying a computer can evolve and come about all by itself, and even the human body is much more fantastic of a creation, not to mention, christians have the holy spirit, they can feel god, they know he is there, they have an understanding of things that others simply cannot have. when i went from satanist, to christian, within a few minutes of asking christ into my life, i completly had my view changed on the entire universe and for once in my life understood my purpose, god, salvation, morals, etc. not to mention, i fight a war everyday within me, a constant battle of flesh vs. spirit. i am 100% sure there is a god and nothing could ever change my mind

 

[seekandlisten]

there is tons of evidence leading to a creator, just look at how complex the human body is, saying it could randomly evolve out of time breaks several scientific laws and is about as logical as saying a computer can evolve and come about all by itself, and even the human body is much more fantastic of a creation, not to mention, christians have the holy spirit, they can feel god, they know he is there, they have an understanding of things that others simply cannot have. when i went from satanist, to christian, within a few minutes of asking christ into my life, i completly had my view changed on the entire universe and for once in my life understood my purpose, god, salvation, morals, etc. not to mention, i fight a war everyday within me, a constant battle of flesh vs. spirit. i am 100% sure there is a god and nothing could ever change my mind

Does this 'evidence' of a creator 'God' only point to the 'God' of Christianity or would it also be 'evidence' of Brahma? What about Atum, Ptah, Kamui, or Izanagi? Is the Creator God of Christianity the same as the Creator God of Sikhism? What you believe on a personal level is not going to be 'proof' acceptable by someone else so how would you effectively witness this 'creator.'

 

[Brokendoll]

there is tons of evidence leading to a creator

Name one piece of evidence that couldn't have come about by natural processes as understood by science.

just look at how complex the human body is, saying it could randomly evolve out of time breaks several scientific laws

Claiming that Evolution is random just shows that you do not understand Evolution.

and [it]is about as logical as saying a computer can evolve and come about all by itself

And it could if it was self-replicating, possessed heredity, was subject to random fluctuations of it's specs and was exposed to a process akin to natural selection.

and even the human body is much more fantastic of a creation, not to mention, christians have the holy spirit, they can feel god, they know he is there

Argument from personal incredulity. It is, as always, a fallacy.

they [Christians] have an understanding of things that others simply cannot have

And what understanding is that? I'll buy that they have a faith that others cannot have (if they did they would be Christians), but what understanding is this and how does it benefit you? Before you answer, remember that belief and understanding are two very different concepts.

when i went from satanist, to christian, within a few minutes of asking christ into my life, i completly had my view changed on the entire universe and for once in my life understood my purpose, god, salvation, morals, etc. not to mention, i fight a war everyday within me, a constant battle of flesh vs. spirit. i am 100% sure there is a god and nothing could ever change my mind

Oh, I'm sure you are sincere and that you really feel that way. It is also your right to do so, and I would never attempt to deny you that. But for all your faith and all your sincerity, that still doesn't constitute an argument.

 

[archangel_300]

I think there is plenty of proof God exists and that proof comes from within the Bible itself. I'm thoroughly convinced after careful study that a human mind could not have authored it. That's pretty much the only reason why I believe in the scriptures and in God. It's actually what solidified my faith as a Christian.

The Bible is kind of like a puzzle that was created by many authors who lived in diverse geographical regions over many hundreds of years many thousands of years ago. One artist paints one piece of the puzzle while another artist paints another piece. At first glance nothing makes much sense they are just random pieces scattered about. At this point some people stop and say "there's so much contradiction", "nothing makes sense"... etc. Other people start analyzing the pieces and start putting them together. Eventually when all the pieces are put together they see a beautful detailed and accurate snapshot of the entire Golden gate bridge on February 18th at 4:15pm. Considering the fact that the authors lived many thousands of years ago and didn't have access to one another's work. Is it possible by some random chance that their work when combined together would make a perfect photographic snapshot of some random event that occurred in the future? Probably not without an exterior source at work. This is not the most perfect analogy but the best one I can give.

Many parts of the scripture's meaning are hidden from view until you see the other parts and place the pieces together. Embedded within many parts of the Old Testament scripture you see God's salvation plan and Jesus Christ which is revealed in the New Testament.

Here's just one example (I have *plenty* more):
Read Genesis 22... If you look carefully you'll see this is not only a "story" but a demonstration of what God the Father would do to His only Son Jesus. It's a picture of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. By this event all nations on earth will be blessed. I have also read that the very place where this event occurred is around the same place where Christ was literally crucified. I don't think this is a coincidence... but that's just me.

A pretty good book to read is "From Shadows to Reality" by John Oakes.
It goes into detail about these types of things.