A test for the faithful -- you can not prove that "God" exists, can you?

You are a person of faith. You believe in some kind of god--maybe Allah, maybe Zeus, or maybe a god named God. Yet you can not prove said existence. I'd like to hear your best argument.

 

I guess, even after explaining it a hundred time some atheists are just to think headed to get it.

Sceintific evidence for God is inconclusive. There are strong cases that CAN be made in both directions, but the reality is that science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God - and that is the way God wants it. (Go figure, huh?)

Faith is the requirement to make the leap to belief in God. The proof is in the pudding, not in science books and not in tests.

You atheists claim it is for atheism - but you spend all your time attempting to prove our religion. And you cannot disprove it. Nor can you prove your own. But you believe anyway.

Yet are fascinated and indeed fixated on evidence .... when we know the evidence is inconclusive.

Tough to be atheist when you MUST both deny faith and use it for your own conlcusion, eh?

You want proof of God? Open your heart, open your mind and ask him. Honestly ask him. It'll come, in his time, in his way, but it will come - if you ask him honestly. Just be prepared when it arrives.

 

The Bible says people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 says, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”

The Bible also states that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.

 

It exists outside of physicality, thats why its called metaphysical. AFAIK the metaphysical spirituality interacts with the minds subconscious and what individuals percieve as a religious experience is the conscious mind trying to contextualize and understand the whole experience. That is why so many religions are similar but different, because cultural frameworks change the context the consciousness can use to intepret the experience. So the only way your going to find proof is to experience it yourself. Otherwise you can elect to have faith. I dont think faith is a requirement though, it just facilitates a spiritual awareness if one chooses and is successful on that path.

 

God is not a god - he's just simple god.

A good argument is for example:

Stehen im Schatten
Des Wundenmals in der Luft.

Für-niemand-und-nichts-Stehn.
Unerkannt,
für dich
allein.

Mit allem, was darin Raum hat,
auch ohne
Sprache.

Paul Celan
-----

So I would say: Go to the meadows of the birchs in Auschwitz - take god in your arms - give him a kiss - and give him a home in your heart. In this case as long as you will live god will live. But maybe this will make some Nazis angry. So it's maybe much more better for you to do your own decision - not mine. Be careful as you have fear in your heart. If you don't like to believe in god - then just simple let it be.

http://youtu.be/mIuuzK4XyDA

 

In order for Science to disprove gods existence, science would have to prove everything else. In other words your asking science to prove the existence of every jigsaw piece in a puzzle in order to disprove gods existence.

The burden to prove god's existence is on the believers, not science, because all science is asking is for you to prove 1 piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

If you don't believe in this standard, than i require believers to prove purple half-horse monkeys don't exist.

 

Cannot should be one word. Jus sayin'.

Nope I can't prove it. Just like I can't prove there is love. I can't prove that Global Warming is man-made. I certainly can't prove there is life on other planets. And I can't prove there are things that are just plain beyond human comprehension.

Of course, scientific theory, based on the evidence man had to work with - given his limited understanding at the time, contended that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. That a complete fetus was found in the sperm of a man. That eating meat was essential for good health (remember the four food groups?) and so on.

Here's a question: Why do you care?

 

I think the reality of altruism is something to consider. As the 10th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks is tomorrow--perhaps it would be good to meditate on why so many ran IN to the buildings rather than ran out.

Why did the passengers of Flight 93 fight back and die in a field rather than another building?

What about all the little acts of self-sacrifice and giving that occurred in conjunction with those horrific events?

God is with us, especially in those selfless acts we are inspired to do.

Love is the best reason to believe in God, IMO.

 

Matt.11[30] For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


No one has to prove God exists. Either you accept it or you don't based on the evidence you perceive and your own willingness to cooperate with that evidence.

 

Really, that is the best you can do? It was a rather pathetic argument. May as well use the Lord of the Rings as proof of elves or The War of the Worlds as proof of an alien invasion of Earth, because they're books too.

 

Evolution. Throughout the history of our species pretty much everyone around us was of our family. By dying for your group you are increasing the chance that the genes of your family will go on. Your genes aren't currently aware that almost everyone around you today is not your family and so you carry on acting as if people around you are.

 

to argue with a liar is useless..

Nothing good about the neutral approach as YOU are the worst poster of BS on this section

no it aint.

Mother nature created all life that you ever knew; period.

contest over!

and the idiot tries to rant that god created mother nature.

the evidence is conclusive about mom and the inconclusive is that some utter dude did it

hang on.................. i feeeeeeeel it coming



gen 3:22

And God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,' --






wow!


it worx

 

End of discussion.

 

If I know God exists, why do I need to prove God exists?

Quantrill

 

Can you disprove my religion? The Flying Spaguetti Monster?

Or can you disprove the teeter in middle of the space? CAn you?

Who must prove the existence of God is you.

Who must prove the existence of the Flying Spaguetti Monster is me, because it's me who is doing that affirmation.

Do you get that? The science is based in prove your theory, not in disproving a theory. By default what you're trying to explain doesn't exist, and you must prove that you're right, and that exists.

So go on, prove it. How you can't, then it is absurd believe in that. It is an irrational act. Faith is irrational.

 

It would be a daft exercise. Once upon a time everyone believed in 'gods' and expressed their truth in terms of them, doubtless managing to hear the necessary voices and so on to convince themselves and give themselves courage. Our job is to rephrase their intuitions in ways we can use. There is no point in holding an argument with dead beliefs: it just wastes good time.

 

That is absurd. Is that how science works? Or is that how excuses work?

Test conform or deny - one test, that is how science works.

There is a test that will tell you whether you have high blood pressure, if it comes back negative .... we don't have to test everything in the universe.

Santa claims that he lives at the North Pole, and we have checked the entire North Pole - no Santa. We do not have to check the rest of the universe to be sure ...

Well, maybe deny at any cost atheists do, but that's just because the denial is, at that point, illogical.

Atheists use faith for their beliefes (and a lot of excuses), this test is for your faith as well, and once again, we see sceinec and logic spun on its head.

Its not just God you deny, but sceince and logic as well.

 

So, other hear and see.

No matter what you remain blind and deaf - at any and al costs.

Bt your way is sceintific?

Hypocritical meanness is all I see.

 

Yes I can, and indeed have many times.

Why do the blind, deaf, and deliberately dumb keep asking me to do it?

Lets take a look at spaghetti shall we?

We know each and every ingredient that goes into spaghetti, none of them are magical, none of them have ever claimed to be divine, and all of them, individually and combined, are inanimant objects - not allive, and certainly not inbued with personality or creative powers.

Now, contrast that to God. Do we know what he is made up of? If you add a little butter to God as the cooking process completes will your God be creamier and more delicious? Does God go well with a nice Chianti?

Oh, but they are the same thing? Its called guily by association and is a fallacy. Notice, I have not had to check the entire universe yet.

Now there is the KNOWN origins of the FSM.

"The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" first appeared in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005, protesting the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.[3] In the letter, Henderson parodied the concept of intelligent design by professing belief in a supernatural creator that closely resembles spaghetti and meatballs. Henderson further called for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism to be allotted equal time in science classrooms alongside intelligent design and evolution.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

In other words, we not only know who made it up, when they made it up, but why they made it up. In short, we KNOW it is made up - fake - not real - imaginary.

Yet for some reason, atheists use this not to parody intelligent design, but, so far out of whack with evidence and reasoning, they use it to parody RELIGION and THINK it represents an accurate understanding of sceince.

That makes the users of the FSM both dumb and, quite frankly, asses. This is hardly a concept that proves anything other than the character flaws of those who advance this intellectually flawed fallacy.

Finally, there is the use of absurd in logic.

Here is a breif proof about how you can indeed prove a nagative without checking the entire universe.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Here is another one, from within the none theist community.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

Here is another from the atheist community.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

"A common retort to a negative proof is to reference the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as just as valid as the proposed entity of the debate. This is similar to reductio ad absurdum, that taking negative proof as legitimate means can prove practically anything, regardless how absurd."

And its that last part that should give you warning, because logic has rules. You see, when we know that people are just introducing the absurd and untestable simple to avoid being wrong at any cost? Its no onger logical.

Time and again we examine seintific concepts and arrive at a point of HONEST inconclusiveness.

Time and again, atheist creationists bury their head and continue to beat their mantra out that evidence supports their position but not our - and we get one fallacy after another.

You deny because if you acknoweldge God, then that means you might have to ask the next question, "Well, what does God want me to do then?" And that begins accountability.

But as we can see from the advocates of known, proveably so, falsehoods like magic spaghetti and unicorns, accountability is something such atheists greatly fear.

Everyone else calls it discipline.

 

In what way does evolution account for giving a rat's arse about family? There is no survival instinct that suggests death is the best way to survive. Altruism like that shown to perfect strangers in the 9/11 terror attacks is a function of the rational mind.

 

See you. I suppose your comment means something - to you at least.

 

I think that the key point is that - whatever the reason - human beings don't have instincts, so that the 'evolutionary beneficial' argument just doesn't work. We die for others because that is a proper way for people to behave, or so the best people so far have judged.

 

There you have it. Scientific proof from an atheist

Agh, atheists make this easy

 

I am just wondering why any of the pleathora of atheists who assure me that love is central to atheism (while accusing me of being a jerk for pointing out how evolution has no love concept yet does seem central to atheism) are not taking issue with P's statement?

Which is it guys?

Do atheists have love? Or do you have evolution?

 

Why do you keep ranting on about atheists? Why do you rant about scientific proof? What has that do do with anything?