Evidence that god exists

[MARIS61]

Since Mags's thread about atheism was (deliberately?) flawed from the beginning as you can't prove a negative, let's try to discredit atheism the only way possible.

By proving god exists.

I'd like to see whatever convincing evidence beyond the bible that you can bring.

If all you have to offer is the bible and other people's interpretation of it, I'll just ignore your post without comment.

If all you have to offer is "other theories don't make sense" or "only intelligent design makes sense", I'll just ignore your post without comment.

If you have any evidence at all not drawn from the bible, koran, torah...please bring it.

I've never come across a shred so I am eager to see what you've got.

 

[ABM]

I've always wanted to read this book. Perhaps, I'll now get it:

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If all you have to offer is "other theories don't make sense" or "only intelligent design makes sense", I'll just ignore your post without comment.

This is an interesting statement to me. The God-concept is basically the essence of the super-natural; that is to say, evidence of God would be, by definition, something that cannot be explained via natural means. So, by dismissing any evidence which includes other theories not making sense, aren't you excluding anything that could possibly qualify as evidence of God?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Since Mags's thread about atheism was (deliberately?) flawed from the beginning as you can't prove a negative, let's try to discredit atheism the only way possible.

By proving god exists.

I'd like to see whatever convincing evidence beyond the bible that you can bring.

If all you have to offer is the bible and other people's interpretation of it, I'll just ignore your post without comment.

If all you have to offer is "other theories don't make sense" or "only intelligent design makes sense", I'll just ignore your post without comment.

If you have any evidence at all not drawn from the bible, koran, torah...please bring it.

I've never come across a shred so I am eager to see what you've got.

I'll just ignore your post without comment.

 

[magnifier661]

This is an interesting statement to me. The God-concept is basically the essence of the super-natural; that is to say, evidence of God would be, by definition, something that cannot be explained via natural means. So, by dismissing any evidence which includes other theories not making sense, aren't you excluding anything that could possibly qualify as evidence of God?

Seems that way. But I'm gonna read this thread and see how it pans out. Funny thing is that it is an exact copy of Atheism is not a sound belief. I haven't brought up any of the Bible, Koran or other religious texts in my evidence.

Maybe he doesn't like my thread title.

 

[HailBlazers]

This is an interesting statement to me. The God-concept is basically the essence of the super-natural; that is to say, evidence of God would be, by definition, something that cannot be explained via natural means. So, by dismissing any evidence which includes other theories not making sense, aren't you excluding anything that could possibly qualify as evidence of God?

Which brings us to why this tread is flawed from the beginning. We'd need a whole thread about the Definition of what God is, and come to a consensus on that, before we could even begin to provide "evidence," that "God," exists.

 

[Denny Crane]

I say bring whatever evidence you like. If you have evidence that's objective and measurable, Maris will convert.

 

[magnifier661]

I say bring whatever evidence you like. If you have evidence that's objective and measurable, Maris will convert.

So I can use my Bible then?

 

[ABM]

Which brings us to why this tread is flawed from the beginning.

Reminds me of some of those Les Schwab recaps I used to buy back in the day.

 

[magnifier661]

Which brings us to why this tread is flawed from the beginning. We'd need a whole thread about the Definition of what God is, and come to a consensus on that, before we could even begin to provide "evidence," that "God," exists.

Yep.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[ABM]

If there were truly "evidence" that God existed, then there would be no reason for faith. Faith is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

So I can use my Bible then?

what part of objective and measurable made you think that?

 

[RR7]

If there were truly "evidence" that God existed, then there would be no reason for faith. Faith is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

Very true. Kind of kills the purpose of the other thread, doesn't it?

 

[Denny Crane]

Use the Bible, but be warned you have to show it isn't a work of fiction. I think you will have serious trouble showing that.

In the other thread I mentioned taking a picture. I was referring to a picture (or movie) of the burning bush. Even that evidence would need to be thoroughly scrutinized to show it wasn't photoshop or Hollywood special effects.

Carry on.

 

[MARIS61]

Seems that way. But I'm gonna read this thread and see how it pans out. Funny thing is that it is an exact copy of Atheism is not a sound belief. I haven't brought up any of the Bible, Koran or other religious texts in my evidence.

Maybe he doesn't like my thread title.

I don't, because it is designed to fail. You cannot prove a negative, but you can certainly prove a positive so I thought this might tip the scales a bit toward the religious side.

 

[Denny Crane]

You can prove a negative.

I can take a picture of the blue dumpster outside my office building to prove it isn't red.

 

[magnifier661]

Use the Bible, but be warned you have to show it isn't a work of fiction. I think you will have serious trouble showing that.

In the other thread I mentioned taking a picture. I was referring to a picture (or movie) of the burning bush. Even that evidence would need to be thoroughly scrutinized to show it wasn't photoshop or Hollywood special effects.

Carry on.

That's a good point about the Bible reference. Gonna have to think about that. Maybe my first string of evidence would first associate the Bible as being of God's inspiration? Then if you agree on that; then we can move on.

And I would rather reply on the "burning bush" thing on that thread. Doesn't seem to apply here.

 

[magnifier661]

You can prove a negative.

I can take a picture of the blue dumpster outside my office building to prove it isn't red.

Or prove to a blind man that purple does, in fact exist.

 

[crowTrobot]

If there were truly "evidence" that God existed, then there would be no reason for faith.

i'm surprised christians still say this, it's so absurd. so obviously just an excuse to believe something with no good reason.

 

[magnifier661]

what part of objective and measurable made you think that?

Depends on who you talk to I guess.

 

[Denny Crane]

People hear voices all the time and do crazy things. Inspiration is going to be a tough one.

Tin foil hat so you don't hear the voices, right Maris?

 

[magnifier661]

i'm surprised christians still say this, it's so absurd. so obviously just an excuse to believe something with no good reason.

I am not in that boat, even though I have a lot of Faith.

 

[magnifier661]

But be clear that the evidence on my thread, especially "life cannot be created by non-life" and "Mathematical improbability" of the universe; with all the known atoms; and the estimated time of the universe is "not probable" can explain that the universe needed "fine tuning"; hence intelligence to guide the way.

 

[crowTrobot]

This is an interesting statement to me. The God-concept is basically the essence of the super-natural; that is to say, evidence of God would be, by definition, something that cannot be explained via natural means. So, by dismissing any evidence which includes other theories not making sense, aren't you excluding anything that could possibly qualify as evidence of God?

i'm assuming maris is referring to events that have the potential to be explainable by natural laws, even though they currently aren't - trying to preempt god-of-the-gaps nonsense.

an event that contradicts natural laws could still be considered evidence, or would be considered evidence if it happened in a way indicating intelligence was involved.

 

[MadeFromDust]

i'm surprised christians still say this, it's so absurd. so obviously just an excuse to believe something with no good reason.

There are many, many reasons to believe in God, most of which are backed by scientific, historical, archaeological, cosmological and teleological evidence, but ABM makes a good point here. Anyone who has knowledge of the Bible knows that God requires faith, and through faith we are saved. Faith is only possible in a world with suffering, so is growth. Not only would faith be impossible with objective physical evidence of God, but it would violate free will.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

i'm assuming maris is referring to events that have the potential to be explainable by natural laws, even though they currently aren't - trying to preempt god-of-the-gaps nonsense.

an event that contradicts natural laws could still be considered evidence, or would be considered evidence if it happened in a way indicating intelligence was involved.

But couldn't any evidence that contradicted pre-established natural laws be identified as something else for which we simply don't yet understand the natural explanation? For instance, isn't that essentially the default position for the explanation of genesis of matter out of nothingness?

 

[crowTrobot]

There are many, many reasons to believe in God, most of which are backed by scientific, historical, archaeological, cosmological and teleological evidence, but ABM makes a good point here. Anyone who has knowledge of the Bible knows that God requires faith, and through faith we are saved. Faith is only possible in a world with suffering, so is growth. Not only would faith be impossible with objective physical evidence of God, but it would violate free will.

except you do NOT HAVE free will to genuinely believe in something for which there is no evidence. genuine belief is not a matter of choice. it is ONLY compelled by evidence. anything else (faith) is convincing yourself through wishful thinking or self-brainwashing.

the free will is in accepting god or not IF i think there's evidence he exists, but i don't have that choice at all if i have no reason to think he exists.

 

[magnifier661]

The God of the gaps theory isn't enough evidence to discredit what we don't know. If that's the case; then all historical accounts of people, kings, crusaders, etc. Would all be discounted. That's why I cannot accept that theory. It would toss out everything that modern science, archeology and historical data recorded or tried to explain.