Who Can Prove God's Existence?

[Riverwolf]

We have our books of faith! Science has nothing.

Science has objective observation. That is far more reliable than ancient texts.

 

[NGerty]

1. The Egyptians personified the sun, desert and wind. The Babylonians personified the desert winds. Many Neopagans personify the Earth. Gods are often personifications of natural phenomena. And yes I do mean that our "creator" exploded and that we are made up of that creator. You probably believe the same thing too...

2. Not at all, a deity can take a variety of forms, not all of which are conscious and certainly not all "like a human".

"You probably believe the same thing too..."

No, I don't believe the Big Bang was God exploding and imparting himself into all things. I believe everything around us once was part of that point of matter 13 billion years ago, but not that we and the Earth and moon are made of God.

And if you believe that God is the universe, that he is what makes up all matter, than how do you reconcile with the fact your belief and image of God is different from the omniscient, loving bearded sky-man the Bible portrays?

 

[NGerty]

Science has objective observation. That is far more reliable than ancient texts.

I agree. Science is not always correct, especially when it's theories are young and speculative. But I would trust science over the Bible (or any other religious texts) when it comes to answering the riddles of the universe.

 

[footprints]

First of all, scientists have shown and proven the Big Bang was what created the universe. When you say there is "no proof either way" you are mistaken. There is proof, and the Big Bang is a fact.

So you don't really know if there is a god, but you have faith? Why? Just in case there is a god and you aren't punished when you die? What if it isn't the Christian God that is true? Shouldn't you then worship all gods for good measure?

You may have strong faith, but why do you have faith?

If you believe the Universe was created by the Big Bang and that science has completely proven this, then you have just as much faith as anyone. Even the theory of evolution isn't untouchable and could be proven completely false tomorrow. If the Big Bang is your proof, hmmm, one wonders.

Where the universe and life as we know it is concerned: Without physics there can be no chemistry. Without chemistry there can be no evolution.

When the base foundation of physics is built on a premise of improbability this means there is a potential for the foundation to be fundamentally flawed. This has the probability of making the foundation of Chemistry fundamentally flawed which in turn has the probability to make the foundation of evolution fundamentally flawed. Where evolution is concerned the probability is increased by the shift away from the original premise and the variables there contained.

Every theory as it pertains to the Universe at this point in time is based on the premise of a scientific impossibility/improbability, that either something was created from nothing, or, something has always existed and therefore an effect without a cause. Both of these scientific improbabilities are just as Supernatural, mystical, or even as much of a miracle as any theory that pertains to a deity at this point of time in our knowledge. Many people point to this missing or creation link in science as God, and at this point in time it is as good as an explanation as any other theory.

 

[Riverwolf]

And if you believe that God is the universe, that he is what makes up all matter, than how do you reconcile with the fact your belief and image of God is different from the omniscient, loving bearded sky-man the Bible portrays?

The Bible does not portray such a God. In fact, one of the Ten Commandments states: "You shall not make any graven image [of God.]" The God of the Tanakh is ambiguous in description; most of the anthropomorphic imagery is simply Hebrew poetry at work, to help the reader understand what's going on. The Father of the New Testament is even more ambiguous, only ever described as "The Father in Heaven."

The image of the bearded sky-god is a relatively contemporary image, probably inspired by the images of the Greek gods like Zeus, who is pretty much always depicted with a large white beard, and is certainly a sky-god.

Images are there to help us focus our thoughts, prayers, and meditations. They are not meant to be literal portraits of God.

 

[Erebus]

"You probably believe the same thing too..."

1.No, I don't believe the Big Bang was God exploding and imparting himself into all things. I believe everything around us once was part of that point of matter 13 billion years ago, but not that we and the Earth and moon are made of God.

2.And if you believe that God is the universe, that he is what makes up all matter, than how do you reconcile with the fact your belief and image of God is different from the omniscient, loving bearded sky-man the Bible portrays?

1. You do believe the same thing then, it's just you don't call it "God". This would be an example of a non-supernatural god. I never made any claim that this god was any more than an enormous explosion of particles, I simply referred to it as an "unconscious creator" and as a "deity". Both of these terms are correctly applied as not only did the big bang create us, it is also revered by many people (myself included).

2. Are you perhaps confusing me with a Christian?

 

[footprints]

I agree. Science is not always correct, especially when it's theories are young and speculative. But I would trust science over the Bible (or any other religious texts) when it comes to answering the riddles of the universe.

And so you should, the Bible nor other religious texts do not even attempt to answer these questions or give people that knowledge. It isn't that important of an issue where spirituality is concerned and a person doesn't need that knowledge.

 

[NGerty]

I have a very limited knowledge of religions and the religious texts I refer to. I unjustly focus my thoughts on Christians and Christianity, and on fundamentalists who blindly follow and read the Bible like it is God telling them how to live their lives. I have learned through this that there are many different interpretations of God and that people can embrace science and still hold the belief that God is a force or power that permeates the universe.

I have negative associations with the word "God" and too often assume every theist believes in the same things to the same severe degree...

 

[Erebus]

I have a very limited knowledge of religions and the religious texts I refer to. I unjustly focus my thoughts on Christians and Christianity, and on fundamentalists who blindly follow and read the Bible like it is God telling them how to live their lives. I have learned through this that there are many different interpretations of God and that people can embrace science and still hold the belief that God is a force or power that permeates the universe.

I have negative associations with the word "God" and too often assume every theist believes in the same things to the same severe degree...

Hey don't worry about it, it's a common enough mistake. Not everybody comes to realise this though so frubals to you

 

[Storm]

I have a very limited knowledge of religions and the religious texts I refer to. I unjustly focus my thoughts on Christians and Christianity, and on fundamentalists who blindly follow and read the Bible like it is God telling them how to live their lives. I have learned through this that there are many different interpretations of God and that people can embrace science and still hold the belief that God is a force or power that permeates the universe.

I have negative associations with the word "God" and too often assume every theist believes in the same things to the same severe degree...

Hey don't worry about it, it's a common enough mistake. Not everybody comes to realise this though so frubals to you

Indeed!

 

[Quagmire]

Who Can Prove God's Existence?

God probably can if he wants to.

 

[Archer]

Sure, why not intelligent. That stands as long as there is no reason to believe it is not intelligent design. But the better question now is why intelligent?

There isn't any reason not to believe in an intelligent creator, but that fact doesn't justify believing in one when there is no supporting evidence or indication.

We have our books of faith! Science has nothing.

Take it all in context wolf. It was a response not a statement.

Science has objective observation. That is far more reliable than ancient texts.

 

[footprints]

I have a very limited knowledge of religions and the religious texts I refer to. I unjustly focus my thoughts on Christians and Christianity, and on fundamentalists who blindly follow and read the Bible like it is God telling them how to live their lives. I have learned through this that there are many different interpretations of God and that people can embrace science and still hold the belief that God is a force or power that permeates the universe.

I have negative associations with the word "God" and too often assume every theist believes in the same things to the same severe degree...

Knowing you have negative association patterns to a particular subject or issue is the first step to change. This doesn't mean change to be a theist, it just means to change to become more tolerant and understanding of people of different beliefs.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have a very limited knowledge of religions and the religious texts I refer to. I unjustly focus my thoughts on Christians and Christianity, and on fundamentalists who blindly follow and read the Bible like it is God telling them how to live their lives. I have learned through this that there are many different interpretations of God and that people can embrace science and still hold the belief that God is a force or power that permeates the universe.

I have negative associations with the word "God" and too often assume every theist believes in the same things to the same severe degree...

Alright. So until that negative association is fixed (it can be, by the way), how about we use a different term, as there are several? I, personally, love "Supreme Reality" when talking about It/He/She in a general sense. For specific gods, you can use their names. For the God of the Tanakh (Old Testament), the name to use is YHWH. For the New Testament, the name you can use is Father in Heaven, or Jesus Christ if you're debating with an assumption that Jesus was, in fact, God.

Meanwhile, continue your studies. If you want to actually study the Biblical canon, I can make some recommendations on how to get started. One piece of advice, however: take each text on its own terms, not on yours or anyone elses'. It is best not to judge or critique the writings or their contents based on modern standards: so when you see Lot offering his daughters to a mob of angry rapists to protect his guests from being raped, remember that 1. hospitality was, and is, a HUGE deal in Judaism, and 2. daughters and sons were considered property in those days; therefore, don't judge it with modern standards which would abhor such an act. After all, in 2000 years, many people will look back on our culture and say, "How terrible and immoral those people were!"

 

[Riverwolf]

Take it all in context wolf. It was a response not a statement.

Ah. Thanks. Sorry about that.

In that case, the proper response would probably be:

Science has deductive and logical reasoning. It also says that things should not be considered fact until there is undeniable and objectively verifiable (this part's important) proof of its existence. With God, there is none.

 

[Archer]

Ah. Thanks. Sorry about that.

In that case, the proper response would probably be:

Science has deductive and logical reasoning. It also says that things should not be considered fact until there is undeniable and objectively verifiable (this part's important) proof of its existence. With God, there is none.

Historical proofs, have you seen the investigations for saint hood? When I say I have a book showing me the path .

Science has some facts that I do not dispute but the manual is incomplete therefore I trust my soul to a higher power as my manual is more complete.

 

[Riverwolf]

Historical proofs, have you seen the investigations for saint hood? When I say I have a book showing me the path .

Can you tell me what some of these "proofs" are?

I have not seen the investigations for saint hood, as my studies have not brought me there, yet.

Science has some facts that I do not dispute but the manual is incomplete therefore I trust my soul to a higher power as my manual is more complete.

In its own universe, in the parameters it established, yes, it is more complete. But more complete doesn't mean correct. Other mythological histories are very complete in the pictures they paint: that doesn't mean they're literally correct.

 

[fantome profane]

One piece of advice, however: take each text on its own terms, not on yours or anyone elses'. It is best not to judge or critique the writings or their contents based on modern standards: so when you see Lot offering his daughters to a mob of angry rapists to protect his guests from being raped, remember that 1. hospitality was, and is, a HUGE deal in Judaism, and 2. daughters and sons were considered property in those days; therefore, don't judge it with modern standards which would abhor such an act. After all, in 2000 years, many people will look back on our culture and say, "How terrible and immoral those people were!"

Moral relativism is not the answer. If it were what would be the point?


My advice would be not to take this advice.

 

[Archer]

Can you tell me what some of these "proofs" are?

I have not seen the investigations for saint hood, as my studies have not brought me there, yet.

In its own universe, in the parameters it established, yes, it is more complete. But more complete doesn't mean correct. Other mythological histories are very complete in the pictures they paint: that doesn't mean they're literally correct.

Though I do not follow the Catholic teachings:

The road to sainthood begins at the grass-roots. Ordinary Christians, perhaps in a parish or a religious community, recognize that someone of extraordinary holiness has lived among them. The memory of that person inspires them. The story of his or her life is told, perhaps in a book. People pray to the person, asking intercession for some favor, and their prayers may be answered. Extraordinary signs, perhaps a cure from sickness, occur. A local group may be formed which seeks to make this person's life and gifts more widely known.

After a long period of time, sometimes many years, the bishop of the diocese where that person lived may be asked to begin the local process for declaring a saint. If he sees merit in the request, he sets up a board of experts to investigate the person's life, soundness of faith and reputation for holiness. Those who knew the person are interviewed. If miracles are attributed to that person's intercession, they must verified by medical experts. Finally the bishop must ascertain from the other bishops of the region if this person is known and venerated more widely than in one local area.

Then, if there is reason to proceed further, the bishop may petition Rome to begin the process of beatification.
Beatification

Beatification is the next step toward sainthood. It begins when the local bishop provides the materials he has accumulated to the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints. Using the materials, officials of the congregation create an historical-critical account of the candidate's life and spirituality. One important criteria sought at this stage is the historical importance of the candidate: Did he or she meet a particular challenge of their time and place? Did the candidate offer a new example of holiness to the world in which he lived? Or was he truly a martyr, one who died for faith in Jesus Christ?

If the candidate was martyred, a miracle need not be sought. If the candidate did not die as a martyr, then one miracle after death must be proven, through the scrutiny of a body of medical experts. Once they find it acceptable, and the candidate's life is judged truly heroic by a group of theological experts and cardinals, then the pope can declare that beatification may proceed. After the beatifcation takes place, the candidate can be called blessed and veneration may be offered by the local church. The pope can then go further and canonize the blessed.
Canonization

Canonization is the final step that declares someone a saint. It means that the candidate, already called blessed, is entered into the worldwide list of saints recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. First, however, in the case of a candidate who is not a martyr, the church looks for another authentic miracle attributed to the candidate's intercession, as a sign from God of the candidate's heroic holiness. Then, if the candidate's reputation for holiness continues to grow worldwide, the pope may decide to canonize.

The church does not claim that its own list of saints is exhaustive. In fact, its celebration of the Feast of All Saints on November 1st points to a "huge crowd which no one could count from every nation, race, people, and tongue." (Revelations 7) The church's list of canonized saints is only meant to witness to God's grace at work through every time and place, from the first centuries until now.

If there is any trend in the process of canonization it is the search for more "lay" saints: mothers and fathers, men and women who were active in the world of family, business and politics and showed themselves to be holy in a secular world. The church is looking for original saints, who responded to the unique needs of their times, and so can open the way of holiness to others.

Above all, the saints are examples of how to follow Jesus Christ in every circumstance. "In the lives of those who shared in our humanity and yet were transformed into especially successful images of Christ, God vividly manifests to men his presence and his face. He speaks to us in them, and gives us a sign of his Kingdom, to which we are powerfully drawn, surrounded as we are by so many witnesses ( cf. Hebrews 12,1), and having such an argument for the truth of the gospel." (Lumen Gentium 50, Vatican II)

 

[Riverwolf]

Moral relativism is not the answer. If it were what would be the point?


My advice would be not to take this advice.

Moral relativism is the most logical approach, in my opinion. I fail to see how judging ancient cultures by our own standards is wise.