There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Josh97]

What does it mean to Prove?
Most forms of human proof stems from scientific, quantified and mathematical reasoning - through this reasoning it states there is no God.
However as man philosophically endeavours to conceive ideas that are beyond humanity - they also look to prove, but in a differentiated sense than that of those who reason scientifically.
That is what defines proof, something that is no way definite, it is more subjective than we think
So when people come to me and ask me to prove an existence of a God - what can I say?

 

[Serenity7855]

What does it mean to Prove?
Most forms of human proof stems from scientific, quantified and mathematical reasoning - through this reasoning it states there is no God.
However as man philosophically endeavours to conceive ideas that are beyond humanity - they also look to prove, but in a differentiated sense than that of those who reason scientifically.
That is what defines proof, something that is no way definite, it is more subjective than we think
So when people come to me and ask me to prove an existence of a God - what can I say?

No one can prove absolutely that there is a God, no more so than we can say nothing existed before the big bang. If you are a Christian, and you told me that there is a God, then I would believe you, because I have the same knowledge as you, however, there are those, right here, who would suggest that you are insane, so proof is relative to who you are telling it to.

What we do is look at a given situation. And theorise as to how that situation came about. We put all the piece together to see if they all fit and replace those that don't, and then we destroy it to see if it will stand up. From those observation we work out a probability of our theory being correct. For the big bang theory we have mountains of information, that on their own are meaningless, but together they probably prove the theory right. Some one has just said here that the big bang is theoretical so can not be considered proof or fact, which is absurd. It would be like saying the same thing about the theory of evolution, it only displays an ignorance of the subject. It is, of course, an axiom. A scientific fact. A proof, however, new evidence could present itself today making it all wrong so we would have to start again and my postulation that God caused the universe to exist would be wrong

You cannot prove the existence of a God, but what you can do is add him to the equation. To make his presence a real possibility. When you do that the word "atheist" becomes obsolete, meaningless, and all that invested time in bitter exchanges with Christians will be a waste of time and effort. Now ask yourself, what is the probability of these militant atheist, right here, surrendering to such an idea without a real fight.

There is an opposing force in this country who have taken enough insults and are putting on the armor of God ready to do battle against the evil forces of Beelzebub. Science is becoming an alia to Christianity and at long last diety will become a real factor in the many supernatural events that can be seen in our universe. Maybe those events promised are not that far away?

Hey, nice to see a fresh name here.

 

[Magic Man]

Hmmm, quite a venomous and derisively vacuous post. You have far exceeded yourself as a militant atheist. Well done.

There was nothing remotely venomous or derisively vacuous in that post. It was a simple direct response to your argument.

But you have shown pretty clearly why you have such an ax to grind with "militant atheists". Unsurprisingly, it's not them who are the problem, it's you. When you treat a genuine, reasonable argument against one of your claims as a hostile, venomous and unreasonable post by a militant atheist, it becomes clear you're seeing things that aren't there, which accounts for your venom towards supposed militant atheists.

 

[Magic Man]

Once more - just for you

1. Was there ever a point when the universe did not exist? - Yes, Fact

Nope. We can't say with any certainty one way or the other. It's possible there was a point when the universe didn't exist, but it's equally possible there was no such point.

2. Does the universe exist right now? - Yes, Fact
3. Could the universe have come into existence via causation or uncaused - Yes, Fact
4. Could that causation be a God - Yes, Fact

Yes, it could be.

What more evidence do you need? The problem that a God could be involved in the process of the universe coming into existence is a bitter pill for you to swallow. It would take away your coveted title of atheist and replace it with agnostic, a fence sitter.

I need evidence that God is more likely, unless your only point is that a god is possible. God's possibility is not a bitter pill for anyone, and it doesn't mean someone's not an atheist. I'm an atheist, and I admit the possibility of a god's existence. An agnostic is not a fence sitter, for one, and for another, acknowledging that there's a possibility that a god exists doesn't make you a fence sitter. Here's how it works:

I am an atheist because I don't believe a god exists. In fact, I believe God doesn't exist. I am also an agnostic because I don't believe we know for sure, and we might not ever be able to know for sure. So, I am an agnostic atheist, and not a fence sitter, yet I acknowledge the possibility of some god's existence.

 

[Serenity7855]

There was nothing remotely venomous or derisively vacuous in that post. It was a simple direct response to your argument.

But you have shown pretty clearly why you have such an ax to grind with "militant atheists". Unsurprisingly, it's not them who are the problem, it's you. When you treat a genuine, reasonable argument against one of your claims as a hostile, venomous and unreasonable post by a militant atheist, it becomes clear you're seeing things that aren't there, which accounts for your venom towards supposed militant atheists.

You obviously see what I do not. I am satisfied that I have interpreted this posters rebuttals in the way I described as honest and accurate. I am sure that Bunyip, a fellow atheist of yours, will respond in his usual belligerent manner.

 

[Bunyip]

No, my Friend, you have just lost all credibility, in my opinion. You are trying to denounce absolute scientific fact in an attempt to save face and hold fast to your atheistic non-belief. To accept the truth makes your belief a fallacy and you need that. At least everyone else can see the possibility in the argument, you see no wood though you are in a forrest of trees. I am not even going to give you a rebuttal as you obviously have zero knowledge on the subject being debated.

Another poor attempt to avoid answering to a point that you know destroys your position.

There was never a time when the universe did not exist (according to the BB theory, which the Kalam relies upon). It is the simple fact you will do anything to avoid engaging with.

You will not give a rebuttal because you and everyone else reading this knows that you can not do so, and instead will feign offence and rant about 'militant atheists'.

 

[Serenity7855]

Another poor attempt to avoid answering to a point that you know destroys your position.

There was never a time when the universe did not exist (according to the BB theory, which the Kalam relies upon). It is the simple fact you will do anything to avoid engaging with.

You will not give a rebuttal because you and everyone else reading this knows that you can not do so, and instead will feign offence and rant about 'militant atheists'.

You really are a seasoned militant atheist, aren't you? You pull out every trick in their book. This one is the Bully boy technique. You use the words "everyone else", "us", "we" and "our" to give an impression that I stand alone in my opinion so I must be wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you know how many scientific discoveries there have been based on the anomalous scientist going against the traditions of many, as you are suggesting here. It has just happened with Dr Burzynski.

Just this morning on the TV Brian Cox said that the universe had a beginning 15 billion years ago. Is he wrong as well because everybody on here says so.

I will not give a rebuttal because I genuinely believe that you do not have the mental capacity to fully understand the concept to which you are making a mockery of. What is the point of my explanation when you will not be able to comprehend it. Zero.

 

[Bunyip]

You really are a seasoned militant atheist, aren't you? You pull out every trick in their book. This one is the Bully boy technique. You use the words "everyone else", "us", "we" and "our" to give an impression that I stand alone in my opinion so I must be wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you know how many scientific discoveries there have been based on the lone scientist going against the traditions of many, as you are suggesting here. It has just happened with Dr Burzynski.

Just this morning on the TV Brian Cox said that the universe had a beginning 15 billion years ago. Is he wrong as well because everybody on here says so.

I will not give a rebuttal because I genuinely believe that you do not have the mental capacity to fully understand the concept to which you are making a mockery of. What is the point of my explanation when you will not be able to comprehend it. Zero.

Another transparent evasion.

You can not supply a rebuttal, your argument is defeated.

Yes the universe had a beginning, and no that does not mean that there was ever a time when the universe did not exist - time began with the BB.

 

[adi2d]

Once more - just for you

1. Was there ever a point when the universe did not exist? - Yes, Fact
2. Does the universe exist right now? - Yes, Fact
3. Could the universe have come into existence via causation or uncaused - Yes, Fact
4. Could that causation be a God - Yes, Fact
5. Is it correct to say that if it sprang into existence it would have done so outside of the realms of our natural laws, making it a supernatural event and, therefore, could be attributable to a superior being, a God - Yes, Fact

What more evidence do you need? The problem that a God could be involved in the process of the universe coming into existence is a bitter pill for you to swallow. It would take away your coveted title of atheist and replace it with agnostic, a fence sitter.

I have read what you are saying. Could you do the same for me?
You said the universe coming in existence was one piece of evidence for the existence of God. I am asking for other evidence. I believe the bb theory says this universe came into existence 15 billion years ago.

That's twice you've called me an atheist. I believe I am a reasonable man asking questions. Convince me

 

[Serenity7855]

I have read what you are saying. Could you do the same for me?
You said the universe coming in existence was one piece of evidence for the existence of God. I am asking for other evidence. I believe the bb theory says this universe came into existence 15 billion years ago.

That's twice you've called me an atheist. I believe I am a reasonable man asking questions. Convince me

I fully intend to, however, I have expended a great deal of thought and energy on the big bang and rapid expansion. Far more then I thought necessary. I am getting older and suffer with very much shorter spans of concentration and a reduced ability to retrieve the knowledge in my mind than I used to, so I refer to my notes a lot now. I therefore need to read them before I proceed. I need to clear my head of the big bang and refill it with the anthropic principle, or fine tuning, and it's miraculous effects on our planet. Another piece of circumstantial evidence in favour of a God.

Are you not an atheist?

 

[outhouse]

RUN and IGNORE wont help you against history.

YOU should try it and learn what your talking about here.


History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult

 

[outhouse]

. I am getting older and suffer

I have seen this effect how stubborn people are.

Minds closed like a steel trap.

 

[Serenity7855]

Another transparent evasion.

You can not supply a rebuttal, your argument is defeated.

Yes the universe had a beginning, and no that does not mean that there was ever a time when the universe did not exist - time began with the BB.

Nobody knows for a surety that a big bang ever happened. No one was there, no recordings, eyewitnesses, documented evidences, nothing. We have come to that conclusion through the standard cosmological model, that, at one time was completely inaccurate because scientists left out a very important variable - gravity. We assume that we have it right now, and perhaps we do, however, it still remains a theory. Metaphysical, an abstract reasoning, a supernatural event, theoretical and unsubstantiated.

Having said all of that, there is a mountain of evidence to support a phenomenon we do not even know happened. So much evidence that science considers it a factual event. What do we call that. Yes, we can, that an axiom. A metaphysical event that is considered an axiom to science. Science says that the axiom of the big bang originated from a metaphysical event, a supernatural event that is unsubstantiated. A metaphysical happening has resulted in a axiom. However you say it the two are synonymous.

The universe, as we know it, had a beginning 15 billion years ago, the beginning of time. It was either caused or it sprang into being without a cause. Either way God is a possibility.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you know when I was in university, many years ago now, we had a chemistry professor as one of our lecturers. Looks like Albert Einstein and seemed completely mad, however, he imparted some very good advice to me as I was having panic attacks over a presentation. I had to do. He said that you should never talk about a subject unless you are so familiar with it that when you are questioned on it you will have a answer immediately, without hesitation. Make sure, he said, that you know what you are taking about or you will make yourself look a fool. I have never forgotten that advice. I have studied scriptures to a point where I am a walking Bible. I am getting older so forget chapter and verse now but I know everything that it contains. Every principle, parable, allegory and precept. I have tried to disprove it and Tried to prove it. I have been it's greatest sceptic and most avid believer. I am not boasting, I am a realist, so I need to be sure that I am choosing the right. To that end, I am fully capable of connecting the god of the big bang to the god of the bible. It is all in Genesis.

So you're telling me that you get from Big Bang theory to the god you personally believe in via the Bible? I'm not sure how that answers my question.

 

[outhouse]

Nobody knows for a surety that a big bang ever happened. .

Yet you want to place a supernatural explanation for said possible event.

By the way, we are dealing with a factual expansion of space and time. This is not your mythology.

There is no debate here. Your desperation is showing.

 

[ScuzManiac]

I don't see ANY evidence for a God in this thread whatsoever.

Comparing humans to the animal kingdom is kind of grasping at straws if you ask me.

And if you want to be technical about it...

Humans AREN'T smarter than every creature in the animal kingdom.

Animals just speak a different language than we do.

Just because an American may not be able to communicate with an Asian...

Doesn't mean we are smarter than them (and statistically, we aren't).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you know when I was in university, many years ago now, we had a chemistry professor as one of our lecturers. Looks like Albert Einstein and seemed completely mad, however, he imparted some very good advice to me as I was having panic attacks over a presentation. I had to do. He said that you should never talk about a subject unless you are so familiar with it that when you are questioned on it you will have a answer immediately, without hesitation. Make sure, he said, that you know what you are taking about or you will make yourself look a fool. I have never forgotten that advice. I have studied scriptures to a point where I am a walking Bible. I am getting older so forget chapter and verse now but I know everything that it contains. Every principle, parable, allegory and precept. I have tried to disprove it and Tried to prove it. I have been it's greatest sceptic and most avid believer. I am not boasting, I am a realist, so I need to be sure that I am choosing the right. To that end, I am fully capable of connecting the god of the big bang to the god of the bible. It is all in Genesis.

I fully intend to, however, I have expended a great deal of thought and energy on the big bang and rapid expansion. Far more then I thought necessary. I am getting older and suffer with very much shorter spans of concentration and a reduced ability to retrieve the knowledge in my mind than I used to, so I refer to my notes a lot now. I therefore need to read them before I proceed. I need to clear my head of the big bang and refill it with the anthropic principle, or fine tuning, and it's miraculous effects on our planet. Another piece of circumstantial evidence in favour of a God.

Are you not an atheist?

.....

 

[George-ananda]

Minds closed like a steel trap.

Do you fancy yourself 'Mr. Open Minded'?

 

[outhouse]

Do you fancy yourself 'Mr. Open Minded'?

Stop it.

You have a well known track record of trying to push the supernatural into reality.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yet you want to place a supernatural explanation for said possible event.

By the way, we are dealing with a factual expansion of space and time. This is not your mythology.

There is no debate here. Your desperation is showing.

Every scientific discovery is based on someone's guess. That is how the scientific method works. There is nothing factual in a guess. It is common sense. A new law is defined as, a guess - computation of consequences - comparison to nature. If it disagrees with nature, it is wrong, try again. As Dr. Richard Feynman most eloquently taught us, in his 1 minute lecture. Metaphysics, as Bunyip tells us, is a guess, a hunch. The exact starting point of the scientific method, that is used through the scientific community, is a guess. Indeed, Brian Cox supports Dr Richard Feynman explanation of the scientific method, that is, that it starts with metaphysics, a guess, a hunch, or in Einstein's case, a picture. Who would have thunk it? Knowledge is a wonderful thing, however, it is insufficient on its own. Without an ability to understand it, and apply it, without the mental capacity to comprehend it, it remains just a useless piece of information and shows the difference between a wise man and a intellectual, fool.


Feynman on Scientific Method. - YouTube