newgodthinker
Member
A challenge/question to the believers out there. What would you name as evidence of God? I am curious, not trying to be condescending.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence of Divinity
- Thread starter newgodthinker
- Start date
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
The best evidence, for me, is the ability to escape nihilism.
The fact someone can go that deep and manage to crawl their way out... It's absolutely miraculous that motivation can become regenerated from someone amotivational. It's proof that something can come from nothing, and to me that is pretty incredible, too incredible to be done without the Working Higher.
Even the fact that meaning can arise in a meaningless universe.
The fact someone can go that deep and manage to crawl their way out... It's absolutely miraculous that motivation can become regenerated from someone amotivational. It's proof that something can come from nothing, and to me that is pretty incredible, too incredible to be done without the Working Higher.
Even the fact that meaning can arise in a meaningless universe.
I'm not a believer, but I would consider it if I saw evidence that belief in God is consistently conductive to religious wisdom.
Just as a house is evidence of a builder, the creation is evidence of an all-wise, almighty Creator. (Hebrews 3:4) the Bible explains at Romans 1:20: God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the worlds creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [who deny God's existence] are inexcusable."
Gods are that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship, typically because it is valued in some way. That might be because it is awe-inspiring, has wisdom to share, bears sublime qualities, is fundamentally greater than us, or any other number of reasons. It's not about evidence; it's about finding what you find worth celebrating in the world and celebrating it. I value all aspects of reality, and I regard them as gods. That reality exists speaks for itself and is pretty darned self-evident. 
To me the strongest evidence is the teachings, lives, and experiences of the many masters of the eastern (Indian/Hindu) tradition. And my study of the paranormal that has shown me the universe is something dramatically more complicated as it applies to consciousness than is implied by physicalist theory.
I must point out that I follow non-dual philosophy as espoused by the masters (God and creation are not two). I don't believe in a God separate from us and creation.
I have none, because there is none. I have only faith and belief. However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the quip goes. So there's that faith and belief thingie again.
The evidence is everywhere, just a matter of interpreting the evidence. The universe and its infinite power along with general relativity and its capability of it being literally eternal, time literally stops outside space-time with high enough energies, fits the definitions that I would pose for divinity eternal and practically all powerful. And it would be no lie that this divinity is within everything, deep down beyond our conscious senses.
Science could stumble right over a god and they would be like, what the heck was that, I don't know lets measure it.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Well I would cite that since we probably live in a computer simulation and since the universe is a vast quantum computer...there just might a operating system by which this computer simulation is ran on this vast quantum computer and that operating system is God.
Science may have already, but we don't know. We have no frame of reference, no context, no starting point.
I can definitely deeply appreciate this view.
Please ignore the fact that I likely have an Information Technology bias.
Amechania
Daimona of the Helpless
There are explanations for how things came to be other than "God did it." I can certainly understand having an apreciation for the beauty of the cosmos and percieving that as something beyond the natural, but our appreciation is natural and part of the cosmos, so there is no evidence of God in the cosmos as we understand it. There is only evidence of the cosmos. Anything else is pure speculation. The ability to imagine is a better argument than the existence of the universe, and yet, it's not a particularly strong argument. We cannot know if awareness is or is not natural.
Last edited:
If you said that about a house, that there is no evidence of a builder, few, if any, would agree with you. The natural world is filled with creative wonders that are complex beyond our ability to understand, and beautiful in form, function, and variety. I cannot accept a house had a builder and that a living cell did not.
I find the question of "which" god exists to be of equal importance to "whether" a god exists. If one states that the existence of a fine-tuned Universe is evidence for a god, one still needs to find some way of figuring out who this god is. Is it a deist god? Is it Allah? Brahman?
I would look for the various amounts of evidence present in each religion (i.e. answered prayers, miracles, fulfilled prophecy, successful exorcisms, historically accurate scriptures, etc.). This is something of a "work in progress" for me. At one time I would not even consider other religions to be possibly correct. Now, I've become more open-minded and am investigating.
I would look for the various amounts of evidence present in each religion (i.e. answered prayers, miracles, fulfilled prophecy, successful exorcisms, historically accurate scriptures, etc.). This is something of a "work in progress" for me. At one time I would not even consider other religions to be possibly correct. Now, I've become more open-minded and am investigating.
Apparently for specific people at least there is indeed.
There is an extremely fundamental method employed most often by humans to convey a truth, but without human's own awareness about the existence of such a method.
Since it is the most efficient and most employed method to convey a general truth, if God does exist He should use it to convey His message intended for humans.
And the Christian God employed such a method explicitly to convey the intended message for humans.
1) humans employ a methodology called human witnessing to convey almost each and every claimed truth, but humans they themselves don't realize so
2) God explicitly employed human witnessing (in a valid way) to convey His message of salvation among humans.
In order to reach a truth, humans have to rely on a very small group of humans as the first line witnesses who maintain a direct contact with the truth itself. All other humans choose to believe/or not about what is said by this small group of humans to reach a truth. Almost each and every single piece of truth is reached by humans this way.
To name a few,
You won't acquire direct evidence of the existence of the black holes (or any scientific truth in general). You rely on the scientists (a small group of humans) to work it out for you to believe. You believe the existence of black hole because the multiple accounts of scientific writings said so.
You don't acquire any evidence regarding to the missing Boeing 777, you rely on the multiple accounts of media to reach such a truth. The media is made up of a small group of humans called the reporters/editors/writers.
It is almost impossible for you to acquire any evidence in the distant history of any human nations. You have to rely purely on human witnessing to reach the truth of a specific historical event or figure. You have to believe what is said by a small group of humans regarded as the historians to reach any truth. More likely, if multiple accounts of historians saying the same thing, it's more credible to believe.
In any case, you don't examine any evidence, you just choose to believe what is said by the small group of humans professed in determine the truth. Almost all human knowledge are conveyed this way, that is, through human witnessing. :yes:
If a God exists and He would like His messages to be conveyed among humans, not only He should be able to use this approach, but also He should be able to explicitly name this approach. Humans themselves failed to realize this approach explicitly.
Now among all those religions out there, only the Christian God is capable of doing so. The Bible is explicitly said to be formed by witnessing. Prophets are regarded as God's witnesses. No other human books can explicit apply this concept as the Bible does. The concept of multiple accounts is used explicitly plus that martyrdom is used to validate the human witnessing.
Isaiah 6:9
Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Last edited: