Does science prove the existence of god?

[Pah]

I find it hard to believe that you've been around here for 4 years, and still don't understand the basics like this.

Hehehe. I even enforced the rules

I always was a sucker for the "red herring" and "strawman" especially when they showed error.

Another rule we had dealt with "empty" posts - "Hardly. " is one and "Um...no, it doesn't. " is another. Would you or Storm care to expand?

 

[Magic Man]

Hehehe. I even enforced the rules

Then I find it even harder to believe.

I always was a sucker for the "red herring" and "strawman" especially when they showed error.

Care to explain this cryptic message?

Another rule we had dealt with "empty" posts - "Hardly. " is one and "Um...no, it doesn't. " is another. Would you or Storm care to expand?

What was the rule? You didn't allow people to post short posts? And I'll be happy to elaborate on "Um...no, it doesn't" if you give me more to work with than "It shows, by example, how all gods were created.". As it is, even the response I gave was too much for that.

 

[Storm]

Another rule we had dealt with "empty" posts - "Hardly. " is one and "Um...no, it doesn't. " is another. Would you or Storm care to expand?

What is there to expand on? Saying that one religion influencing another illustrates where the notion of God came from in the first place is foolishness.

 

[Pah]

What is there to expand on? Saying that one religion influencing another illustrates where the notion of God came from in the first place is foolishness.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1380163-post441.html {post 144} is an answer to Mr. Spinkles regarding his remark which was quoted. Whether he meant God or god is immaterial since the documentation of any god was impossible to a large extent before the known writing of Egypt. Any trace has to be back to the writings of the the early Egyptian city states. These combined into a national Egyptian state and the early myths were consolidated.

My bad! I thought that you would at least understand the relationship of "tracing back" to when documents where first able to be written

Myth is myth. You might want to acquaint yourself with the works of Joseph Campbell

 

[Storm]

God - or the concept of God - predates writing, Pah, by a good deal. History can tell us nothing of how the concept originated.

 

[Pah]

God - or the concept of God - predates writing, Pah, by a good deal. History can tell us nothing of how the concept originated.

There you go with the capital letters.

Why are you wasting time with conjecture? It is like a cat chasing its tail - all seriousness for the cat but a hilarious show for others.

 

[Storm]

There you go with the capital letters.

Cope.

Why are you wasting time with conjecture? It is like a cat chasing its tail - all seriousness for the cat but a hilarious show for others.

Because I enjoy it. If you don't, leave.

 

[Magic Man]

Why are you wasting time with conjecture?

I don't know. Why are you wasting time with conjecture?

 

[Smoke]

Know any other gods named God?

The local Hindu priest refers quite easily to "God and the Gods."

The name of the Christian God, as all little Christian children learn from the Lord's Prayer, is Howard.

 

[meogi]

Then I find it even harder to believe.

I'll back him up, we've pretty much been here since RF's inception.

Care to explain this cryptic message?

You misunderstood what Pah was communicating, changed the topic (creating a strawman argument) and defended that. Pah was just referring to the mythos of the Christian god (hence his reply, "As long as anyone capitalizes god to God, a Christian god is specified"), not about god's origin or capitalization.

I don't know. Why are you wasting time with conjecture?

Because he likes chasing strawmen.

Appologies if I got something wrong, Pah.

The local Hindu priest refers quite easily to "God and the Gods."

The name of the Christian God, as all little Christian children learn from the Lord's Prayer, is Howard.

I'd never heard that before, hillarious!:clap

 

[moorea944]

getting back to the original post, "can science prove the existence of God?".......

it doesnt have to....... the bible proves it's self. and what i mean about that is that alot of the prophicies have already come true. Jesus stated that we should read and believe in the scriptures. we know that Jesus read the book of Isaiah. he also talks about Moses and knowing that the scriptures are true. even when we talk about creation. alot of people want to know if there really was a creation. the answer to that is simple..... of course there was. if everything else Jesus wants us to believe in , why not creation.

so i think in my opinion, science doesnt have to prove anything............... :>)

 

[Magic Man]

getting back to the original post, "can science prove the existence of God?".......

it doesnt have to....... the bible proves it's self.and what i mean about that is that alot of the prophicies have already come true.

Like what? Which one specifically?

Jesus stated that we should read and believe in the scriptures. we know that Jesus read the book of Isaiah. he also talks about Moses and knowing that the scriptures are true.

I'm sure he did read the book of Isaiah. He was Jewish, after all. Why wouldn't he talk about Moses? And why is his word that the scriptures are true any better than anyone else's? Basically here you're saying that a character in the Bible said that the Bible was true, so it must be true.

even when we talk about creation. alot of people want to know if there really was a creation. the answer to that is simple..... of course there was.

It's not enough to say it. You need to show why or how. Is your answer "of course there was" because that's what it says in the Bible? And if so, why does the fact that it's in the Bible automatically make it true?

if everything else Jesus wants us to believe in , why not creation.

Why believe in anything Jesus wants us to?

 

[moorea944]

good posts mball1297

i take it by your post that your not sure if the bible is true or not?? or that you just want good solid proof that the bible is true. but anyhow, good point. most people do. i was like that too. so here we go.......

first of all, there are alot of bible prophecies that already came true, but from OT to NT. like one of the prophets saying that the messiah would come into town on a donkey. stuff like that.
but outside of the bible are things like...
the falling of TYRE, TYRE is an island off of Lebanon. Ezekiel explained on how Tyre would fall by other nations and how it would be total destroyed even until this day. it would be left to the fisherman casting there nets. King Nebacazzer of Babylon went in hundreds of years later and destroyed it and then Alexander the great later went in and leveled it. today the island is nothing and it's just as the bible said, fisherman casting out their nets to fish. Archeoligist today are still digging up stuff on that city that used to exist.

another one is a tablet found with the writtings on it about the "house of David". it proves that David really did exist.

another one is in Jeremiah. he fortold that the jews would suffer 70 years of Babylonian capture and then that Babylon would suffer for enslaving the jews. Cyprus came in to conquer Babylon, permenatly. even our history books tell us that one.

and a real important one is that the bible states that Israel would evenuallty become a nation. that happened in 1947.

there are alot more if you want me to give them to you............ :>)

 

[Magic Man]

good posts mball1297

Thanks.

i take it by your post that your not sure if the bible is true or not?? or that you just want good solid proof that the bible is true. but anyhow, good point. most people do. i was like that too. so here we go.......

Actually, I'd characterize it more as considering it to me allegory and not meant to be taken literally at all, and so it is true in a sense, but not when taken literally.

first of all, there are alot of bible prophecies that already came true, but from OT to NT. like one of the prophets saying that the messiah would come into town on a donkey. stuff like that.
but outside of the bible are things like...
the falling of TYRE, TYRE is an island off of Lebanon. Ezekiel explained on how Tyre would fall by other nations and how it would be total destroyed even until this day. it would be left to the fisherman casting there nets. King Nebacazzer of Babylon went in hundreds of years later and destroyed it and then Alexander the great later went in and leveled it. today the island is nothing and it's just as the bible said, fisherman casting out their nets to fish. Archeoligist today are still digging up stuff on that city that used to exist.

Can you give me quotes or links to where I can see exactly what you mean? Anyone can interpret a text to say something they want it to. I'd like to see whether this was a specific prophecy like "Your dog will be killed by a school bus tomorrow" where there can be no doubt about it. As far as the Tyre thing, I could have claimed that about any island nation in history and probably be correct at some point. It's like saying "I predict there will be war in the future". It's kind of obvious and it doesn't take a genius or seer to make that kind of prediction.

another one is a tablet found with the writtings on it about the "house of David". it proves that David really did exist.

OK. It's assumed by most that Jesus existed, too. Many of the characters in the Bible probably existed. What does that prove?

another one is in Jeremiah. he fortold that the jews would suffer 70 years of Babylonian capture and then that Babylon would suffer for enslaving the jews. Cyprus came in to conquer Babylon, permenatly. even our history books tell us that one.

Again, I'd want to see what it actually says. Also, again, it's easy to predict war. It happens all the time even in our day. In those days it was even more frequent.

and a real important one is that the bible states that Israel would evenuallty become a nation. that happened in 1947.

Well, this is an interpretation. Again, I'd like to see the specific passages you're referring to. Also, that's not much of a prediction anyway.

there are alot more if you want me to give them to you............ :>)

No, that's ok. I assumed these would be the kind you brought up. The main problem is that you're looking at a book that claimed something, and looking at real events and making the events fit the claims. You could interpret things in the Bible almost anyway you want to make them come true, and many people do. The Bible prophecies are vague and open-ended. They also are based on common sense, and could be claimed by any intelligent person who pays attention to the world.

Also, would you mind answering my other questions too?

"Is your answer "of course there was" because that's what it says in the Bible? And if so, why does the fact that it's in the Bible automatically make it true?"

"Why believe in anything Jesus wants us to?"

 

[belever]

I have heard many religious state in these forums that they believe science proves god's existence, but I've never been able to formally question them.

I am very interested to see some of this evidence though, so please, post away and then we can talk about it!

Beyond​

the Reach of Science​

"THERE is danger in the intense emphasis upon science today, . . . to deny that there is any validity beyond the findings of science is absurd." These warning words by Vannevar Bush, sometimes called the father of the modern computer, are timely. Science does not have all the answers. There are essential truths beyond the reach of science. What are they?​

Science​

​

and God​

A long-time biochemist at New York’s Columbia University, Erwin Chargaff, once said that "natural science is not an instrument to investigate the unfathomable; [nor is] its job to decide on the existence or nonexistence of God." Is that true?
Well, Albert Einstein, the best-known scientific theorist of this century, was led to speak of "a spirit [that] is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man." And more recently Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, was reportedly converted from disbelief to belief in the existence of a creative power when he calculated that it was mathematically impossible for life to appear in the universe by chance.​

These examples illustrate to some extent the truth of the Bible’s statement: "His [God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made." (Romans 1:20) However, Chargaff was correct insofar as there are limits to what science can teach us about God. Neither Einstein nor Hoyle was able to discern from science more than the fact that an organizing God must exist. We have to go to the Bible to learn who that God is and what his purposes are. All such knowledge is truth beyond the reach of science. Watchtower.org

 

[Magic Man]

Well, Albert Einstein, the best-known scientific theorist of this century, was led to speak of "a spirit [that] is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man."​

Enough with Einstein please. He didn't believe in a personal god. If anything he was pantheistic, which is not that far from atheism in the grand scheme of things.

And more recently Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer, was reportedly converted from disbelief to belief in the existence of a creative power when he calculated that it was mathematically impossible for life to appear in the universe by chance.[/quote]

That's just dumb. He must not have been a very good scientist or mathematician considering it is not in fact mathematically impossible for life to appear by chance, aside from the fact that that's not even something that one should be worrying about the mathematical possibility of.

[/quote]
​

These examples illustrate to some extent the truth of the Bible’s statement: "His [God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made." (Romans 1:20)

Not really. Even if you go with your theory up until now, those previous pieces of evidence don't lead to the conclusion of the Christian God or any other specific god for that matter.

However, Chargaff was correct insofar as there are limits to what science can teach us about God.

Of course there are. Science isn't meant to tell us about God. That's what philosophy and theology are for. That still doesn't go towards proving that any particular god exists.

Neither Einstein nor Hoyle was able to discern from science more than the fact that an organizing God must exist.

This is just false. As I said, Einstein didn't believe in "intelligent design". He believed in a "spiritual awe" about the universe, but nothing like a personal god that organized everything. This is all aside from the fact that this is nothing more than an appeal to authority, a very bad fallacy. It's not even a good one, either.

We have to go to the Bible to learn who that God is and what his purposes are. All such knowledge is truth beyond the reach of science. Watchtower.org

Why would we have to go to the bible to learn about God, even if we assume there is some sort of supernatural creator/organizer? The Bible is still only one possibility from that information. There are millions of others. Going from "There must be some higher intelligent force which created everything" to "The Bible is true" is one immense leap, with which even the best Olympic athlete would have trouble.

 

[belever]

Enough


Why would we have to go to the bible to learn about God, even if we assume there is some sort of supernatural creator/organizer? The Bible is still only one possibility from that information. There are millions of others. Going from "There must be some higher intelligent force which created everything" to "The Bible is true" is one immense leap, with which even the best Olympic athlete would have trouble.
[/size][/font]

Reasons​

for considering the Bible​

The​

​

Bible itself says it is from God, mankind’s Creator​

2 Tim. 3:16, 17: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."
Rev. 1:1: "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place."
2 Sam. 23:1, 2: "The utterance of David the son of Jesse . . . The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his word was upon my tongue."
Isa. 22:15: "This is what the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, has said."​

We would expect God’s message to all mankind to be available around the globe. The Bible, the whole or in part, has been translated into some 1,800 languages. Its circulation totals in the billions. Says The World Book Encyclopedia: "The Bible is the most widely read book in history. It is probably also the most influential. More copies have been distributed of the Bible than of any other book. It has also been translated more times into more languages than any other book."Watchtower.org

 

[moorea944]

WOW, emball1297, your a tough one!! lol just teasin!

but i will get you that info......

 

[moorea944]

instead of wasting space on the board, i googled some things and came up with a great website. you can check out the prophecies on there.

100 fulfilled Bible prophecies

i hope this helps

 

[fantome profane]

first of all, there are alot of bible prophecies that already came true, but from OT to NT. like one of the prophets saying that the messiah would come into town on a donkey. stuff like that.

I don’ t see how any reasonable person could even begin to make the claim that there is sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus actually rode a donkey 2000 years ago. Where is your evidence of this?

I actually have a great deal of respect for the religion of Christianity and for many Christians. But this kind of thing is just so ridiculous that I am embarrassed for them.