CHALLENGE: Provide a Single Piece of Evidence that God Exists

[Just_me_Mike]

Laugh while you can

 

[tarasan]

Laugh while you can

i intend too!!

 

[Apollonius]

In concerns of science and religion, one should never attempt to prove or disprove one based upon the sole belief in the other.

 

[McBell]

In concerns of science and religion, one should never attempt to prove or disprove one based upon the sole belief in the other.

sorry, but I find your attempt to drag science down to the same level of mere belief to be rather disgusting and dishonest.

 

[TechTed]

What did come first, the chicken or the egg?

Neither?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

In concerns of science and religion, one should never attempt to prove or disprove one based upon the sole belief in the other.

There is no such thing as "belief" in science. Science is based on fact, something religion has yet to find. Religion can be debunked by science, but it can never go the other way around. If religion were found to be true, it would at that point become science since it is founded on facts. The absolute most religion can do is become science, not disprove it.

 

[A-ManESL]

There is no such thing as "belief" in science. Science is based on fact, something religion has yet to find. Religion can be debunked by science, but it can never go the other way around. If religion were found to be true, it would at that point become science since it is founded on facts. The absolute most religion can do is become science, not disprove it.

You are working with the assumption that the only valid type of knowledge is one which is empirically verifiable by others within the parameters of the physical world. That is your "belief" in science.

Regards

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You are working with the assumption that the only valid type of knowledge is one which is empirically verifiable by others within the parameters of the physical world. That is your "belief" in science.

Regards

Anything that isn't verifiable to us in the physical universe can't be called knowledge at all, seeing as we can never know it. I don't believe in science, i know science. Belief is one's assertion to a statement whether or not it is proven. Science is proven, so it is knowledge.

 

[A-ManESL]

Anything that isn't verifiable to us in the physical universe can't be called knowledge at all, seeing as we can never know it. I don't believe in science, i know science. Belief is one's assertion to a statement whether or not it is proven. Science is proven, so it is knowledge.

While everyone is entitled to their own opinions I just wish to say that I don't agree with almost everything you just said. We can certainly gain knowledge of a different kind that isn't verifiable in the physical world. It belongs to the metaphysical world and the spiritual men and women, the mystics have tasted that knowledge. Its validity becomes self-evident only when one begins to understand it fully and to "see" it you must strive on their path. Its method of "proof" is different from that of science but that doesn't mean that it is of less value.

Secondly, I don't believe that science is proven in the absolute sense. Aren't the methods that are used to observe and collect data themselves susceptible to be influenced by external unknown factors? For example, we see the sun. Where is the proof that the process of seeing with our eyes is absolute and we see what is actually there, and our sight has not been influenced by some unknown factor? Ultimately, only formal sciences like mathematics and logic can be said to be truly proven sciences and empirical sciences can at best be said to give scientific facts and not absolute facts. There are serious epistemlogical issues with the absolute truth of science.

Regards.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

While everyone is entitled to their own opinions I just wish to say that I don't agree with almost everything you just said. We can certainly gain knowledge of a different kind that isn't verifiable in the physical world. It belongs to the metaphysical world and the spiritual men and women, the mystics have tasted that knowledge. Its validity becomes self-evident only when one begins to understand it fully and to "see" it you must strive on their path. Its method of "proof" is different from that of science but that doesn't mean that it is of less value.

Secondly, I don't believe that science is proven in the absolute sense. Aren't the methods that are used to observe and collect data themselves susceptible to be influenced by external unknown factors? For example, we see the sun. Where is the proof that the process of seeing with our eyes is absolute and we see what is actually there, and our sight has not been influenced by some unknown factor? Ultimately, only formal sciences like mathematics and logic can be said to be truly proven sciences and empirical sciences can at best be said to give scientific facts and not absolute facts. There are serious epistemlogical issues with the absolute truth of science.

Regards.

That's an interesting perspective to look at it from, thanks for the food for thought. I tend to believe that the world is a lot simpler than most spiritual people make it out to be though, I'm a very literal person. I don't think people should even start to think about what is beyond the physical world until we can fix the physical world itself.

 

[McBell]

Secondly, I don't believe that science is proven in the absolute sense.

Name one thing that is proven in the absolute sense.

 

[Agapehesed]

Name one thing that is proven in the absolute sense.

I have to agree with this poster. The more scientist learn the more they realize how little we actually know. The existence of dark matter tells us that the entire universe is united by some energy that we know absolutely nothing about. The incredibly complicated nature of the most basic DNA is making modern genetisist turn against the theory of evolution.

To answer the initial question there is no one undisputable piece of evidence that proves the existence of God. To intelligently believe in God one must draw a conclusion based on reasons that can be individualy be challenged, but together form a rational picture.

1. There is no way to exclude the possiblity of a supreme being.
A. No matter how you believe the universe started big bang, bang
boom, sigularity, or some other idea there is always the question
of what came before.
B. The old design indicates designer arguement is plausible
1. The complexity of DNA makes this arguement rock solid.
A.ModernGenetisist are argueing that DNA is far to complex to have
evolved randomly.

2. Bible prophesy is surprisingly accurate.
A. The covenant with Abraham said that God would make him many nations, and
that he would always protect his seed which would number like the stars of
heaven or the sands by the sea.
1. The islamic, christian, and jewish nations trace their origins to this
prophesy.
2. The jewish nation which is the center of this prophesy has been persecuted
more than any other in history still endures even thrives despite all
attempts to eradicate them.
B. Prophesy of the end of the world seems to be more real than ever.
1. Threats of nuclear war, asteroid collisions, and global warming fullfill
prophesies once thought impossible.

3. Like it or not the idea that there is one all knowing all powerful being who encompasses all time, space, and material existence is not that far fetched.
A. The existence of such a being anwsers all the questions.
1. The existence of such a being would explain the very mathematical nature
of universe.
2. The existence of such a being would explain the apparent design of nature.
3. The existence of such a being would explain why the ancients seem to
have been guided in their progression.

 

[McBell]

1. There is no way to exclude the possiblity of a supreme being.

so your argument is "God exists unless you can prove he does not exist"?

A. No matter how you believe the universe started big bang, bang
boom, sigularity, or some other idea there is always the question
of what came before.

I agree.
So where did God come from?

B. The old design indicates designer arguement is plausible

Based on what?

1. The complexity of DNA makes this arguement rock solid.

Only in the dreams of those who want it to.

A.ModernGenetisist are argueing that DNA is far to complex to have evolved randomly.

Really?
Name them.

2. Bible prophesy is surprisingly accurate.

No it isn't.

A. The covenant with Abraham said that God would make him many nations, and
that he would always protect his seed which would number like the stars of
heaven or the sands by the sea.
1. The islamic, christian, and jewish nations trace their origins to this
prophesy.

Of course they do.
Why?
because of your point number 2.

2. The jewish nation which is the center of this prophesy has been persecuted
more than any other in history still endures even thrives despite all
attempts to eradicate them.

*yawn*
and?
Please provide something that indicates that God had anything to do with it.

B. Prophesy of the end of the world seems to be more real than ever.
1. Threats of nuclear war, asteroid collisions, and global warming fullfill
prophesies once thought impossible.

seems to be?
Gonna need to be more convincing than "seems to be".

3. Like it or not the idea that there is one all knowing all powerful being who encompasses all time, space, and material existence is not that far fetched.

Until you actually look at the idea with out the rose colored glasses...

A. The existence of such a being anwsers all the questions.

Of course it does.
When one makes up the questions and the answers, that is kinda the point.

1. The existence of such a being would explain the very mathematical nature
of universe.

This I gotta hear.
Especially given the fact that they could not even get Pi correct.

2. The existence of such a being would explain the apparent design of nature.

Apparent?
Sure you don't mean 'perceived'?

3. The existence of such a being would explain why the ancients seem to
have been guided in their progression.

Classic count the hits and ignore the misses.

 

[McBell]

The more scientist learn the more they realize how little we actually know.

I agree.
And to think that science is still not only much more reliable than religion, but has helped human understanding of the world so much better than religion.

The incredibly complicated nature of the most basic DNA is making modern genetisist turn against the theory of evolution.

Really?
Name them.

To answer the initial question there is no one undisputable piece of evidence that proves the existence of God. To intelligently believe in God one must draw a conclusion based on reasons that can be individualy be challenged, but together form a rational picture.

So your claim is that by putting together a bunch of irrational claims, you can get a rational conclusion that the individual irrational claims do not support?

How exactly does putting a bunch of disputed claims into one basket turn into an indisputable claim?

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

1. Threats of nuclear war, asteroid collisions, and global warming fullfill
prophesies once thought impossible.

Any retard can predict there's going to be a war soon, doesn't make them a prophet. There's wars all the time... Bible "prophecies" are so broad and general that they happen at least once in every generation. The world still has yet to end.

 

[Wotan]

"Its validity becomes self-evident only when one begins to understand it fully and to "see" it you must strive on their path. Its method of "proof" is different from that of science but that doesn't mean that it is of less value. "

Please explain how this differs from, "When you decide to believe then you will believe."

 

[A-ManESL]

"Its validity becomes self-evident only when one begins to understand it fully and to "see" it you must strive on their path. Its method of "proof" is different from that of science but that doesn't mean that it is of less value. "

Please explain how this differs from, "When you decide to believe then you will believe."

It is not the same thing. You will believe only when you have striven on that path of spirituality and have seen that kind of proof and not if you just decide that you will believe. It is not possible to explain it to a non-spiritual person how self-evident that proof is, all things can not be communicated in a scientific fashion. Indeed the Quran comments on this difference between a believer and a person who has just decided to believe in Chapter 49, verse 14.

The Arabs said, "We are Mu'mens (believers)." Say, "You have not believed; what you should say is, `We are Muslims (submitters),' until belief is established in your hearts. -The Holy Quran

Regards.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have to agree with this poster. The more scientist learn the more they realize how little we actually know. The existence of dark matter tells us that the entire universe is united by some energy that we know absolutely nothing about. The incredibly complicated nature of the most basic DNA is making modern genetisist turn against the theory of evolution.

To answer the initial question there is no one indisputable piece of evidence that proves the existence of God. To intelligently believe in God one must draw a conclusion based on reasons that can be individualy be challenged, but together form a rational picture.

1. There is no way to exclude the possiblity of a supreme being.
A. No matter how you believe the universe started big bang, bang
boom, sigularity, or some other idea there is always the question
of what came before.
B. The old design indicates designer arguement is plausible

Unfalsifiable. There is no possibility of a supreme being. The foundation for the argument is based on complete conjecture and suppositions.

1. The complexity of DNA makes this argument rock solid.
A.ModernGenetisist are argueing that DNA is far to complex to have
evolved randomly.

Its only complex in a manner of interpretation.
The processes in organic biology have been going on long before man arrived on the scene and given time and advances in technology this will become much "easier" to understand. Just because something is viewed as complex does no in no way make or confirm it a created work via supernatural origins. Also its a red light when "A modern geneticist" is mentioned without proper sourcing to identify exactly just what modern Geneticist argued that particular point you mention.

2. Bible prophesy is surprisingly accurate.

LOL

A. The covenant with Abraham said that God would make him many nations, and
that he would always protect his seed which would number like the stars of
heaven or the sands by the sea.

Names and places please.

1. The islamic, christian, and jewish nations trace their origins to this
prophesy.

I see now. This is what "nations" are.

2. The jewish nation which is the center of this prophesy has been persecuted more than any other in history still endures even thrives despite all
attempts to eradicate them.

Bogus. Jews have certainly taken their share of hits as a group over the centuries, but I would say Romas are the most persecuted group in the worlds history.

B. Prophesy of the end of the world seems to be more real than ever.
1. Threats of nuclear war, asteroid collisions, and global warming fullfill
prophesies once thought impossible.

Show me any ancient prophecy manuscript where nuclear war and global warming is mentioned directly and not some vague reference open to multiple interpretation. I'll give you meteorological collisions by the fact that ancient man had witnessed and experienced such events like we do today.

3. Like it or not the idea that there is one all knowing all powerful being who encompasses all time, space, and material existence is not that far fetched.
A. The existence of such a being anwsers all the questions.
1. The existence of such a being would explain the very mathematical nature
of universe.
2. The existence of such a being would explain the apparent design of nature.
3. The existence of such a being would explain why the ancients seem to
have been guided in their progression.

That's all this will be too. An idea.

 

[123VOXON]

Do you believe in the supernatural? Have you ever met demon possessed people? I have... this stuff is for real. The God of Abraham reveals these invisible forces to us. Attend a few seances and then report back. Talk to people who know they are talking to demons... listen to their stories. I've personally experienced a few miracles. The God of Abaham creates miracles. Sometimes we reject God because of our limited experiences. I notice you reject creation as a revelation of God. How well they have brainwashed you. The system "Satanic in nature" does this to people. You have brought into the party line... simply because you lack experience and the knowledge of reality. The party places serious limitations upon our ability to see beyond our little room. Jesus spoke of knowing the truth and the truth setting one free. Posing your challenge is a pathway to reality... that is how I finally discovered it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you believe in the supernatural? Have you ever met demon possessed people? I have... this stuff is for real. The God of Abraham reveals these invisible forces to us. Attend a few seances and then report back. Talk to people who know they are talking to demons... listen to their stories. I've personally experienced a few miracles. The God of Abaham creates miracles. Sometimes we reject God because of our limited experiences. I notice you reject creation as a revelation of God. How well they have brainwashed you. The system "Satanic in nature" does this to people. You have brought into the party line... simply because you lack experience and the knowledge of reality. The party places serious limitations upon our ability to see beyond our little room. Jesus spoke of knowing the truth and the truth setting one free. Posing your challenge is a pathway to reality... that is how I finally discovered it.

There is nothing you, your church, your pastor, "God", or whatever, can ever do to make what you are stating here provable and convincing enough to match the type of truth that empirical evidence brings. Ever.