So Prove It

[SE13]

I have said this countless times in various threads, but I am looking for proof that there is a God.

I have cited World destruction as a reason why "God" would make himself known, with no constructive answer. What about the breeds of animals going extinct? Surely "God" would step in to prevent "his" creatures from extinction?

I have flicked through The Bible, and again, there is no proof that this "person" exists, yet you all harp on about him.

Where will I find proof of his existance?

And what has he done that is so great that people will flock in their masses to sit in a freezing Church and sing to him and worship him?

I ask for proof of the existance of such a being.
_________________
It feels so empty without a signature, so here is some mindless gabble to occupy the space

[clpo13]

The proof you (and I) look for does not exist. If God exists, the only proof of that existence is in the minds of people who believe he does exist. They can't prove that God's existence is more than just a figment of their imagination without solid evidence. But there isn't any solid evidence that a skeptic would accept.

My take is that if God exists, he doesn't really have any power in the physical world. He's more of a spiritual thing that affects things through people, not directly. Most people wouldn't agree with that view of God, but I'm not most people.
_________________
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." --Thomas Jefferson

[img:cd1c8454aa]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y57/clpo13/anothersig1.jpg[/img:cd1c8454aa]

[marinaroz]

[ClickFanatic]

There is no proof.

A God is something that people use to explain their own existence and to be guided by. God is real because people believe in him. That's the only proof we have and ever will have.

That said, I am repeatedly annoyed by the fact that many people think the Bible is a history book. They think that what is written there actually happened in the past.
God didn't flood the Earth. Jesus didn't walk on water.
The Bible is a book that teaches people (in an extraordinary way) about a lifestyle. Don't consider it more than that.
_________________
Captain Jell-O Buster from the Future
[img]http://feeds.feedburner.com/sparepencil.1.gif[/img]

[Necromis]

Click, I agree and disagree with you at the same time. The Bible does contain SOME history. However, it is slanted by moral guidlines and examples and recountings that are used to teach lessons. After all we know that some things within the Bible did happen, for one Jesus's death. This is not to say that I feel he was the son of The or a God. Just that he as a person did live at that time frame as well as others mentioned within it.

One thing that has always agrivated me in regards to the debate over existance of God is the Theists take that Athiests have a negative belief system. Meaning that their not believing in God is belief system. This is absurd. A Athiest simply does not believe the evidence supplied by Thiests proves the existance. To say that this in turn makes Athiests to have an Anti-God Belief system is like saying people who don't believe in six feet tall pink bunnies have and Anti-six feet tall pink bunny belief system. I can say all I want that six feet tall pink bunnies exist, but it is up to me to prove their existance. Not for those who don't believe in six feet tall pink bunnies to prove they don't exist.

[ClickFanatic]

Surely the Bible may contain stories that refer to historical events or are based on an event in history, but that is not what it is about. The purpose of the Bible is not to provide an accurate description of history and should therefore not be used as such.

A problem with religion is that many people believe in something that other people have come up with. Why can't people think for themselves and come up with their own explanation?
_________________
Captain Jell-O Buster from the Future
[img]http://feeds.feedburner.com/sparepencil.1.gif[/img]

[Scott]

[Necromis]

Click I agree it is not meant as a history. Scott, I also agree science is there to find answers. You can also look at religion as a *theory* just not proven. It does not make it any more or less true. I mean Newton had a theory about gravity that he could not prove at the time just from an apple landing on his head. This is not to say that religion is true. Or that I follow it. Only that in the nature of science it does fit the theory catagory, and *possibly* at some later time could be proven to be fact thru evidence. Just not currently.

[ClickFanatic]

[Scott]

[ClickFanatic]

[SE13]

[linuxdoctor]

Here is a very famous proof for the existence of God. It is known as St. Anslem's Ontological Argument. It goes something like this:

1. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. God as we conceive of him, exists in the mind.
3. If God exists in the mind, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality.
4. Therefore, God must exist."

This is one of the earliest logical arguments for the existence of God. In the 20th centiry, Kurt Gödel, provided a mathematical proof for a version of Anslem's argument given by Gottfried Liebniz, a co-inventor of the Calculus, known as Gödel's Ontological Proof.

There are many other proofs for God's existence and the Wikipedia has a list of quite a number of proofs for the existence of God. which you can follow up on at your leisure.
_________________
Misanthrope: someone who realizes that humans really are as stupid as they appear.

If you think I'm 'politically' incorrect you have the wrong politics.

[Xtreme]

I don't have the time to jump wholeheartedly into this debate, but just to throw this out there:

How can you offer proof - to others or even to yourself - of other "minds?"

You know that you are, and that you think and so forth. But many of the problems that people run into when trying to "prove God" are strikingly similar to the problems one might encounter when trying to prove the existence of other minds.

I'm fairly sure you cannot offer here any conclusive proof that I exist or that your best friend actually possesses "selfness" or a "mind."

Furthermore, you similarly will fail to prove to a skeptic that you, yourself exist and will find it ever more difficult to demonstrate that you are/have a mind.

The problem with speaking about "proving God" is that we typically sidestep a plethora of other logical hurtles instead of properly leaping over them. If you cannot understand your own existence, the significance of that existence, or the meaning of "knowing," to name a few examples, then it becomes extremely difficult to discuss the meaning and existence of a transcendent - but utterly immanent and necessary - Being.

Not to mention what I poked at above - you probably can't even prove the existence of me to you or the existence of yourself to me. How can we possibly hope to have a coherent conversation?

Sorry if some of this diverges, slightly, but I just wanted to ground the conversation in sounder philosophy than along the lines of "All dogs are animals... are cats are animals... all dogs are cats!"

[kenoodo]

Only GOD can prove that he himself exists. But even he does so, you are still keep questioning why.

It is hard to believe, if you are not ready. So, don't believe, and everything is the same, to you and to the world.