If God existed would there be proof?

[mikkel_the_dane]

وَلَوۡ اَنَّـنَا نَزَّلۡنَاۤ اِلَيۡهِمُ الۡمَلٰٓـئِكَةَ وَكَلَّمَهُمُ الۡمَوۡتٰى وَ حَشَرۡنَا عَلَيۡهِمۡ كُلَّ شَىۡءٍ قُبُلًا مَّا كَانُوۡا لِيُؤۡمِنُوۡۤا اِلَّاۤ اَنۡ يَّشَآءَ اللّٰهُ وَلٰـكِنَّ اَكۡثَرَهُمۡ يَجۡهَلُوۡنَ‏
(6:111) Even if We had sent angels down to them and the dead had spoken to them, and even if We had assembled before them all the things, face to face, they would still not believe unless it be Allah's will that they believe. Most of them behave in utter ignorance.

Yeah, I am one of those.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You've got to be jokin! But in case you are not, I challenge you to provide a scientific theory that includes a creator.

Well obviously you didn't read what I said.
I said science is accepted on a lot less evidence than there is for a creator. Everything we see we accept as being derived from something else. But the universe according to " science" just poofed itself into existence. Seems a lot less likely than a designed universe. We don't see anything else creating itself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Is it evidence for the same God that the Baha'is are saying exists? Especially if yours is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost God. Theirs isn't.

I don't know anything about the Baha'is God.
I'm not saying that the evidence for a specific God is as obvious as the fact that one has to exist.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Baseless assertion. Look, just asserting that people are don't want to see something, is just highlighting your inability, or unwillingness, to supply any objective reason to accept that your god exists. Again, I could just respond that you are just so desperate believe that you have fooled yourself into thinking evidence is everywhere, and we could do on like that ad infinitum.

So how about giving even a single, solitary example of real objective evidence? If it's everywhere, this should be trivially easy for you.

The universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You've got to be jokin! But in case you are not, I challenge you to provide a scientific theory that includes a creator.

Well, if you can turn methodological naturalism in philosophical naturalism, you might have a point.

 

[ppp]

Well obviously you didn't read what I said.
I said science is accepted on a lot less evidence than there is for a creator. Everything we see we accept as being derived from something else. But the universe according to " science" just poofed itself into existence. Seems a lot less likely than a designed universe. We don't see anything else creating itself.

I am unaware of any scientific theory that says that the universe poofed into existence. If that's your understanding of the Big bang theory, then you should adjust your understanding. The only poofing that I have ever heard of is God poofing the universe into existence. As per Genesis 1

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am unaware of any scientific theory that says that the universe poofed into existence. If that's your understanding of the Big bang theory, then you should adjust your understanding. The only poofing that I have ever heard of is God poofing the universe into existence. As per Genesis 1

I am unaware of any naturalistic science, that is not build on axiomatic assumptions, which are without evidence, but rather are the basis of the cognitive process of evidence.

 

[PureX]

I am unaware of any scientific theory that says that the universe poofed into existence.

Actually, all of the evidence so far indicates exactly that. Nothing ... "poof" ... something. It was a very big "poof", granted, and it's still "poofing", right before our eyes. And whatever it meant to "exist" before the big poof certainly transcends any comprehension we have of existence. I'd say that's evidence. Not proof, or course, but clearly it's evidence.

 

[ppp]

Actually, all of the evidence so far indicates exactly that. Nothing ... "poof" ... something. It was a very big "poof", granted, and it's still "poofing", right before our eyes.

Oh? What "all of the evidence" is that?

 

[PureX]

Oh? What "all of the evidence" is that?

All the evidence leading us to conclude that the universe exploded into being for no known reason by no known agency and that everything that exists (from our perspective) exits as a result. Strongly indicating that our perspective of what does and doesn't or can and can't exists must be incomplete.

 

[ppp]

All the evidence leading us to conclude that the universe exploded into being for no known reason by no known agency and that everything that exists (from our perspective) exits as a result. So that our perspective of what does and doesn't or can and can't exists must be incomplete.

Who is "us"?

 

[setarcos]

I am unaware of any scientific theory that says that the universe poofed into existence. If that's your understanding of the Big bang theory, then you should adjust your understanding. The only poofing that I have ever heard of is God poofing the universe into existence. As per Genesis 1

I believe the current understand of the big bang is that time did have a beginning, Stephen Hawking's work suggested that. The thinking is...what caused the expansion from the singularity of no time into expanding time and with it the matter in the universe? That is your mysterious "poof" so to speak.

 

[ppp]

I believe the current understand of the big bang is that time did have a beginning, Stephen Hawking's work suggested that. The thinking is...what caused the expansion from the singularity of no time into expanding time and with it the matter in the universe? That is your mysterious "poof" so to speak.

So your so called "poof" is something that already exists changing its state from singularity to an expanding universe. That's not something from nothing. That is something from something.

 

[PureX]

So your so called "poof" is something that already exists changing its state from singularity to an expanding universe. That's not something from nothing. That is something from something.

The "singularity" is a complete fiction. A made up idea and term (like "God") that we apply to the most profound and unfathomable of all mysteries.

 

[Trailblazer]

False. I've never once asked for proof, only some reasonable and objective evidence. Theists sometimes try to give logical proofs (perhaps because they realise that there is no evidence) but they invariably (in my experience) turn out to be flawed.

Not all atheists are the same so not all atheists require proof that God exists.
Some atheists like you are more reasonable than others.

 

[setarcos]

So your so called "poof" is something that already exists changing its state from singularity to an expanding universe. That's not something from nothing. That is something from something.

I didn't say the universe "poofed" into existence from nothing. Since time seemingly was shown to have a "beginning", it consequently didn't exist before it began and with that neither did the universe of matter and energy. However, the time may very well have been given a beginning by something. Something that preexisted time and this universe. Hawking had to invent what he called imaginary time in an attempt to dispute something from nothing without referring to a creator like being. Of course the religious folks call this preexistent "thing" which started time and the universe off...God. So, believe in imaginary time or in God? Seems a pretty close race to me.

 

[ppp]

The "singularity" is a complete fiction.

Do you have any evidence of that beyond your delightfully confident tone?

 

[PureX]

Do you have any evidence of that beyond your delightfully confident tone?

Demanding evidence for an unknown is it's own evidence. The fact that you demand it shows that you don't know. YOU are the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't really care to debate was just answering the questions lol

Thanks for answering. I agree with your answers.

God has power over all so God is not obligated to provide proof although He has provided proof for those who can see it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jolly good, you'll have no difficulty providing it, then. I await this astounding and ground-breaking proof with interest.

What is proof to one is not proof to all.