CHALLENGE: Provide a Single Piece of Evidence that God Exists

[Fatihah]

Well, no. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Anyhow, man can breathe under water. I even have photos of people breathing under water as evidence:

It would be if you actually demonstrated it. You haven't. Until either side is demonstrated, the assertion's truth is undefined. You don't just "win" by default.


Yes, but in the meantime, the mere fact that a person hasn't presented you with that evidence does not make a claim that will be debunked true. And the only way we can distinguish between a claim that will be debunked and a claim that won't be is to demonstrate that it's true on its own merits.


Until the modern age of spaceflight, it could not be proven conclusively that the moon was not made out of cheese. Does that mean that before this point in history, the claim "the moon is made out of cheese" was valid and true?

Anyhow, if you really do believe that unrefutable things must be valid and true, then I have a teapot to sell you.

Response: Post 112 proves to the contrary.

 

[Kerr]

Response: That's another statement. Where's the proof? For example, prove that mountains were not created.

It is just to read what scientists has come to conclude about it. For example, mountains are what I have read often the result of movements in the plates the surface of the Earth it built of. Diamonds are what I have heard formed in the deeper parts of the planet, bellow the surface. They are basically carbon that is pressured together under extreme stress... or something like that. The tide is caused by the moons gravitational force or something like that. Stars form due to nebula gas collapsing under its own weight (I think that was the explanation anyway). No deity needs to get involved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Response: Post 112 proves to the contrary.

Ah. So you are going to buy the teapot, then?

It's a very nice teapot.

 

[Skeptisch]

Are we looking for evidence for the god who wants us to kill:

• Homosexuals (Lev. 20:13, Rom. 1:26-32)
• Adulterers (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22)
• Disobedient children (Deut. 21:20-21, Lev. 20:9, Exod. 21:15)
• Women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut. 22:13-21)
• Those accused of wickedness by at least two people (Deut. 17:2-7)
• Anyone who works on the Sabbath (Exod. 35:2-3, Num. 15:32-6)

If you find any evidence that he exists you are welcome to believe in him. But why would you? -Sorry for being off topic-

 

[rusra02]

Then another man comes along. Who designed this city, he asks? It works so well, the food comes in, the garbage goes out, there are just the right number of stores to feed the number of people who live here--perfect. Who designed it this way? The people look at one another curiously. "Why, no one--it just sort of grew this way." Then they walk away laughing. What a foolish man, they say.

Evidence of design in nature? What a curious idea. Do you have any?

Realllly? Is that what they would say? That it just sort of grew this way? Maybe if they believed in evolution they would say that..

How about your nose? The construction of the nose allows you to take a shower or walk in the rain without drowning.

I quoted Romans 1:20 - Here is what the statement says "For [God's] invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish. " (vs 21,22)
These verses show that all we need do is look at the things God has made to discern God's matchless qualities. Everywhere we look we see evidence of purposeful design.
No wonder the evolutionary priesthood wants to quash any discussion of intelligent design. How quickly thinking people would see the evolutionary emperor has no clothes.
I would refer honest viewers of this thread to Ben Stein's movie Expelled and other sources available on the Web. Think for yourself and make up your own mind. Don't be bullied by the disdainful self-appointed deciders of what is scientific or not scientific.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Realllly? Is that what they would say? That it just sort of grew this way? Maybe if they believed in evolution they would say that..

All right, then: can you tell me the name of the authority in the city where you live who is responsible for making sure that exactly the right amount of food flows into the city to meet its need, and that exactly the right amount of garbage is trucked away... no more, no less?

How about your nose? The construction of the nose allows you to take a shower or walk in the rain without drowning.

The construction of your esophagus allows you to die of asphyxiation if you eat without enough care. I don't think you want to get into the game of trying to infer the characteristics of our "designer" based on our "design".

 

[sonofskeptish]

There is much evidence that many of the "designs" we see as we look around us are far from "intelligent", in fact, the evidence makes clear they are the result "unintellingent design" (e.g. evolution) as a designer would be an idiot if he knowingly designed them this way.

 

[APW]

Hi sonofskeptish!
No one will ever be able to provide scientific proof that God exists. That being said, no one will ever be able to offer scientific proof that he does not exist.

The reason for this is that science; the noble pursuit of the physical universe is in no way connected to true religion, the search of God. Religion is about the spirit, science about the physical. Science is about measurement and quantification, religion about value and qualification. These two ideas should be able to exist in a non-competitive mental arena within the mind of any normal minded human being.

Rather than attacking the idea of religion, scientists should be concentrating on opening up the wonder of the physical universe, a path to be shared with all mankind. Conversely, rather than denying the fascinating evolution of science, religionists should be concentrating on following the individual path to personal enlightenment, the path to God, who is Love.

The idea of the Abrahamic God of vengeance, who would sacrifice his son to redeem mankind for some supposed original sin, is indicative of the primitive times in which these ideas were formed. Modern man should allow his religious ideals to mature alongside his better understanding of the physical universes.
Al

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There's plenty of evidence of that god exists as long as one is flexible enough with their criteria for what evidence consists of.

 

[Skeptisch]

"Modern man should allow his religious ideals to mature alongside his better understanding of the physical universes."

Here is a suggestion from a man who is sorely missed:
"A religion that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by traditional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge."
-- Carl Sagan

 

[Skeptisch]

“Science is about measurement and quantification, religion about value and qualification. These two ideas should be able to exist in a non-competitive mental arena within the mind of any normal minded human being.”

Many scientists have a handicap, or call it an advantage, their brains are completely wired for reason and logic with zero need for faith and belief. Are they not normal minded human beings?

A scientist by definition has to be well educated and often lives with the only truth he knows and needs, “the scientific truth”. Many reputable scientists, among them Albert Einstein, have adopted the laws of nature as their God.

A biologist gets his sense of awe and wonder when he realises how a very simple mechanism explains how simplicity evolved to complexity, mind and consciousness.

And the astronomer is awestruck by the possibility that our universe is but a single bubble in an infinite multiverse and that we have to be in that one bubble where the laws of nature allow us to exist.

A supernatural god is badly needed in parts of the third world where he is the only hope people have, but shouldn’t the educated among us to let him go?

 

[McBell]

Response: Those who troll can't comprehend.

Ah, so since you cannot comprehend even what you say, you must be (by your own logic) a troll.

I knew it was a mistake taking you off of ignore.

 

[McBell]

Response: Post 112 proves to the contrary.

No it doesn't.

All post #112 is is you grasping at straws whilst showing your complete lack of english comprehension.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: To the contrary, I am claiming something is impossible. Therefore, the only way to prove something impossible, is to show that it is not possible. How do you prove that there is no proof that man cannot breathe under water? The fact that there is no proof that man can breathe under water is the proof!

Likewise, if I am saying that it is impossible for something to come into existance without it being a creation from a creator, the proof that this is true is the fact that there is no other possible way. That is the proof. In order to prove that something is not impossible is to show that it is possible. This is common sense. If you show that it is possible, that debunks the claim that it's not impossible.

Therefore, if I say that it is impossible for something to come into existance besides it being a creation from a creator, the statement stands as truth if in fact you can not provide proof that it is possible for something to come into existance in another way. Since there is none, then the claim is in fact valid and true.

And if this makes sense to you, you might be Fatihah. Otherwise...not so much.

 

[Autodidact]

God was never non-existing, therefore the statement does not mean that God has a creator.

There's the statement; where's the proof?

 

[McBell]

There's the statement; where's the proof?

I can't wait to see which post he will claim proves that big load of bull ****.

 

[challupa]

Response: It doesn't include God. As you have quoted, I said nothing can come into existance without it being a creation from a creator. Therefore, if something is non-existing, it can only come into existance if it is created. God was never non-existing, therefore the statement does not mean that God has a creator.

There's the statement, where's the proof?

Edit: Ahhh Auto, beat me to it!

 

[Luminous]

from AgnosticUniverse.org

Parable of the Metallic Cube

There is a metallic looking cube of an unknown substance measuring twelve inches on each side weighing only half a pound. All of your senses tell you that it is a metal. There is no way inside the cube and there are no signs of welds or any method of manufacture to suggest how it got to be this cube. There is no sound when it is shaken and any attempt to break into it or discover what might be inside is unsuccessful.
A person may say that it was made hollow because it’s light. This believer may believe this because it looks to them like it should be very heavy and it can’t possibly exist like this without being hollow and being made as a hollow cube. They believe all of this even though it appears to be a solid cube when examined. The fact that the cube is hollow makes it easier for them to believe that the heavy looking cube could actually be so light. It explains the cube’s existence and characteristics for them and satisfies their curiosity.
A nonbeliever may say that it is solid because it appears to be solid. There is no evidence that can suggest that the cube is hollow other than the weight. Since the substance that makes up the cube is unknown, they can easily suggest that the lightness of the cube is just a trait of the unknown substance. The fact that the cube definitely appears to be solid makes them not want to jump to any other conclusions if it can’t be proven that the cube is hollow. They also reject the believer's conclusion that the cube was made since there is nothing to suggest that it was manufactured.
The Agnostic accepts the cube as it is. There is no way of knowing what is inside without breaking the cube open and any attempts to do that so far have failed. It could be hollow, solid, or filled with some other unknown substance that makes it lighter, which may not have even occurred to the others. The Agnostic doesn’t really care to make a guess about what’s inside the cube or how it came to be this way because such a guess does not give them any beneficial knowledge about the cube. The Agnostic just knows that in fact nobody really knows!

In The Beginning

I was born. This was the beginning of the universe for me because I personally know nothing before that event. I have to rely on the humans that came before me for anything that has happened before I became me. I must rely on the universe around me for clues as to what is true or false in regards to what my fellow humans tell me. I will not take any story from my ancestors as an unquestionable truth just as those that come after me should not take my word as an absolute truth.
It was just in the past century that Copernicus figured out that the Earth revolves around the Sun and published that discovery in 1543. This fact was finally established despite what everyone else mistakenly thought at the time. It took much time for this simple truth to spread and be believed because of long held beliefs that stated otherwise. Our understanding of the universe is increasing, but our knowledge is still relatively young and very incomplete. We are still very primitive in our understanding of the universe and how it works. We are not even remotely close to knowing and understanding everything about this universe or anything that could be beyond it or before it.
Modern humanity does not possess the full knowledge of the universe as it exists or how it was created, even though we know much more now than we ever have. Human theory for creation currently centers on the Big Bang theory. But this doesn’t ultimately explain from what or why this could have occurred; it's just a theory of how it all started from the vantage point of those that currently exist in it. It doesn’t explain the root cause or source for the origin of the universe and is still an incomplete creation theory for me.
Our history is full of creation theories. Before science conceived of one, these theories came from religion. We know humanity has been creating religious beliefs for as long as we have been intelligent enough to record our history. With the advances of humanity we are creating fewer religions that people take seriously and are now mostly left with the ones we created when we were even more in the dark than we are now. Many people believe that these religions have the answers to our questions about the universe even though the people that gave us these answers knew even less about the universe than we do now.
I believe these religions survive because they have no basis in our reality such as a Mount Olympus that could be found on Earth. Anything that could be shown to disprove them are out of our physical reach. They cannot be proven true or false by scientific methods and rely on faith alone as their truth. They also claim to answer that feeling in each of us that there is something bigger than us out there somewhere that exerts control over our world. Many of us have the hope that some sort of universal justice is controlling everything and strives for goodness. The truth may be that a lack of control is real and there is no universal justice dictating what is good and evil. The power that we feel that may be out there may only be the power of energy and physics.
Most religions believe that everything was created by a supreme being. But this thought is even more incomplete for me than the Big Bang theory. It doesn’t answer the question of where the supreme being came from and where that entity is right now. If it can be easily said that God always existed without a creator then it could just as easily be said the universe has always existed without a creator. This is because a creator would have to be at least as complicated and powerful as the universe itself in order to be able to create the universe. The complication of the universe is used as the argument that it could not just exist on its own, yet it is the same argument that could be made as to why a supreme being could not just exist on its own.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Agnostic accepts the cube as it is. There is no way of knowing what is inside without breaking the cube open and any attempts to do that so far have failed. It could be hollow, solid, or filled with some other unknown substance that makes it lighter, which may not have even occurred to the others. The Agnostic doesn’t really care to make a guess about what’s inside the cube or how it came to be this way because such a guess does not give them any beneficial knowledge about the cube. The Agnostic just knows that in fact nobody really knows!

I know this is just an analogy, but you haven't studied much geology, have you?

By studying seismic waves, we were able to determine that the Earth has a liquid mantle with a solid core, as well as the thickness of the solid crust... all without cutting into the Earth at all.

Whack the surface of the cube with a hammer and listen to how it rings. Measure how the vibrations vary across its surface. Do this again in another spot. Repeat many times. Build up enough data and you'll have a very good idea of whether the cube is hollow, solid or filled with a fluid.

Also, there's the old test to tell the difference between a hard-boiled egg and a raw egg: How to Tell If Eggs Are Raw or Hard Boiled: 6 steps - wikiHow

 

[Fatihah]

Ah, so since you cannot comprehend even what you say, you must be (by your own logic) a troll.

I knew it was a mistake taking you off of ignore.

Response: Still trolling?