Proof of God - for or against???

[Diggin Deep]

It may be hard, but lets try to leave personal experiences and life stories out of this.

Is there proof of God? Can we conclude that He is real?

The answer to this question depends greatly on what is meant by “conclusive” proof. Can we reach out and touch God or see Him in the same way that we touch and see people? No. But there are countless ways one can know assuredly that God does exist.

The Law of Cause and Effect. This law of science states that every cause has its effect and every effect has its cause. This law is the basis of all science. As such, this law bears a relationship to the origin of the heavens and the earth. In fact, scientists agree that the universe has not existed forever, that it had a beginning at some point in time.

The theory of relativity which is almost universally accepted among scientists has certain implications for this Law of Cause and Effect. One is that the universe, defined as time, space, matter, and physical energy had a beginning, that it is not eternal. And it is through Einstein’s equations that scientists can trace the development of the universe back to its very origin, back to what is called the “singularity event” when it actually came into being. Science has proven that the universe really did have a beginning. This obviously means that if the universe had a starting point in history, then it obviously began to exist, and it must have a cause for its existence.

Therefore, if the universe needs a cause for its coming into being, then that cause must be beyond the universe—which is time, space, matter, and physical energy. That cause must be something similar to what Christians call “God.” Even Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent proponent for atheism of our modern times, admitted in a “Time” magazine article that “there could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.”

But what of evolution? Doesn’t evolution explain life and intelligence? Not at all. Evolution is a biological process that attempts to describe change in already existing life forms – it has no way to answer the question of existence.

1. Something exists
2. You don’t get something from nothing
3. Therefore, something necessary and eternal exists
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator
5. Science has disproved the concept of an eternal universe
6. Therefore, an eternal Creator exists

The only premise that can be attacked is premise five, but the fact is every drop of evidence in the possession of science points to the fact that the universe is not eternal and had a beginning. And everything that has a beginning has a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Any fanciful assertions of collapsing universes, imaginary time, and the like are just that – fanciful – and require more faith to believe than to believe in God. The two choices are simple – matter before mind or mind before matter.

 

[Diggin Deep]

The Law of Teleology is the study of design or purpose in natural phenomena. This law of science essentially means that when an object reflects a purpose, goal or design, it must have had a designer. Simply put, things do not design themselves. This holds true for the things in the universe which proves that it had to have a Designer.

For example, the earth in orbiting the sun departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every 18 miles—a very straight line in human terms. If the orbit changed by one-tenth of an inch every 18 miles, it would be vastly larger and we would all freeze to death. If it changed by one-eighth of an inch, we would be incinerated. The sun is burning at approximately 20 million degrees Celsius at its interior. If the earth was moved 10% further away, we would soon freeze to death. If it was moved 10% closer, we would be reduced to ashes. Are we to believe that such precision “just happened”? Think about it: the sun is poised at 93 million miles from earth, which happens to be just right. Did this happen by chance or by design?

 

[Panacea]

“There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.”

Oy, I feel for writers and people who make public statements. :eek

Cause of universe = Creator given the law of cause and effect is too far a leap in logic. Though the universe has a cause, humans do not yet know what it is for certain. Many choose for themselves, in order to have an answer, but this is not proof of god(s) as we know them.

The cause of the universe could a) be something we cannot physically conceptualize (as Dawkins is saying) so calling it god is incorrect (as humans easily conceptualize god). The cause of the universe could b) be something that is not to be worshiped, not something that is omnipotent or omniscient; therefore rendering our entire understanding of god as the cause of the universe incorrect.

There are far too many possible alternative explanations for the cause of the universe to settle on one with any accuracy. This reflects the null hypothesis, and the most logically sound decision.

 

[Panacea]

The Law of Teleology is the study of design or purpose in natural phenomena. This law of science essentially means that when an object reflects a purpose, goal or design, it must have had a designer. Simply put, things do not design themselves. This holds true for the things in the universe which proves that it had to have a Designer.

For example, the earth in orbiting the sun departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every 18 miles—a very straight line in human terms. If the orbit changed by one-tenth of an inch every 18 miles, it would be vastly larger and we would all freeze to death. If it changed by one-eighth of an inch, we would be incinerated. The sun is burning at approximately 20 million degrees Celsius at its interior. If the earth was moved 10% further away, we would soon freeze to death. If it was moved 10% closer, we would be reduced to ashes. Are we to believe that such precision “just happened”? Think about it: the sun is poised at 93 million miles from earth, which happens to be just right. Did this happen by chance or by design?

I am only a social scientist, and often get tangled up in regards to the physical sciences, but I have seen a fabulous argument against this point and I will search for it to present for clarity.

Think of the cases of our earth NOT supporting life...extinctions, natural disasters, the fact the sun will, in fact, incinerate our planet in due time. This argument for intelligent design is not valid.

 

[Diggin Deep]

Oy, I feel for writers and people who make public statements. :eek

I took the "Yes it is God!" out since that was just me talking and had no place after a quote I did not know if he claimed that or not. I see you added it to your quote, so maybe he did...I dunno.

 

[Panacea]

I took the "Yes it is God!" out since that was just me talking and had no place after a quote I did not know if he claimed that or not. I see you added it to your quote, so maybe he did...I dunno.

I took you at your word lol, I was going to search out the quotes, but I was shocked to hear he had said anything was god at all, he's pretty firmly atheist.

 

[pjbleek]

God is in my heart and it is up to me myself and I to accept it.

 

[Diggin Deep]

Just want to explain how I come to my conclusion...Here are things I struggled with for a long time and while deep within my search, I found someone who also shared them - former atheist Lee Strobel,

“Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence… In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

I've read countless articles in college. One I read was by Anthony Flew, “Theology and Falsification”. He was known to be one of the twentieth century's most outspoken athesit. In my quest to prove that there was no god, I went back to reading some of his books.

In contrast to the article he'd written many years earlier, in 2007, Anthony Flew wrote a much different kind of book entitled There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. In it, he recounts his atheism and relays how he now, because of evidence and reason, believes that a creator God exists. The one who initially posited an “imaginary gardener” now says, “I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.”

So then I started looking at the science part of it - parts of which I posted earlier. And I wondered why so many of the well-known atheists, past and present were changing their minds. I then came across a book called: I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek.

So...back to the debate

 

[pjbleek]

Just want to explain how I come to my conclusion...Here are things I struggled with for a long time and while deep within my search, I found someone who also shared them - former atheist Lee Strobel,

“Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence… In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

I've read countless articles in college. One I read was by Anthony Flew, “Theology and Falsification”. He was known to be one of the twentieth century's most outspoken athesit. In my quest to prove that there was no god, I went back to reading some of his books.

In contrast to the article he'd written many years earlier, in 2007, Anthony Flew wrote a much different kind of book entitled There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. In it, he recounts his atheism and relays how he now, because of evidence and reason, believes that a creator God exists. The one who initially posited an “imaginary gardener” now says, “I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.”

So then I started looking at the science part of it - parts of which I posted earlier. And I wondered why so many of the well-known atheists, past and present were changing their minds. I then came across a book called: I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek.

So...back to the debate

debate simply is this...
acceptance or not. there is no other choice.

 

[Diggin Deep]

debate simply is this...
acceptance or not. there is no other choice.

Well said PJ...unexpected, but well said! :thumbup

 

[Panacea]

“Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence… In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

This is a misleading statement, at least for myself, and the atheists I know. I will also say, there are a number of people claiming to be "former atheists" who are now Christians whose speech gives them away as never having been atheists. Not claiming this for Lee Strobel, just putting it out there.

First: evolution, as we all know, does not claim to identify the start of the universe as we know it. A lot of people lump evolution in with the concepts Strobel has placed here and it would be nice if that somehow stopped. (wastes breath)

Secondly: Atheism does not claim there is no start to the universe, it just simply recognizes there is no scientifically sound evidence for a god, as we know it. From there, atheists take positions on a continuum regarding the likelihood of the explanations for the start of the universe we have been given...(ex. Some will feel the Abrahamic god is unlikely, Deism is more likely, no theories are likely, etc, depending on the person).

There is no affirmative case for a god, but that is not to say there is no case for an initial cause. The leap in faith is to believe it is something we know of, despite all of the contradictions we have uncovered as a society, not to take a skeptical approach.

I mean, humans are incredibly fallible...what makes us think we can even begin to know the answers to the origin of the universe and paint it as god? The best we can do is the scientific method!

 

[Tim]

debate simply is this...
acceptance or not. there is no other choice.

So you should never question? Just accept or else?

So you are perfectly ok with just believing in something that cannot even be proved to be true?

If we are working on believing without proof, then your belief in god is just as relevent as those that believe in anything else that cannot be proven.
People who believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, big foot, reincarnation, ghosts, demons, flying monkeys, wizards, psychics, astrologists, etc...
They all are just as correct as you are since you believe in something just as unprovable. Right?

 

[Panacea]

debate simply is this...
acceptance or not. there is no other choice.

Some people enjoy not being sure whether to accept or reject, and find a lot of personal connectivity to middle ground and suspending judgment. Belief is on a continuum, it is not a or b.


*I've always quite liked Dawkins' scale, though I do believe it could go into even greater detail...

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

[itsmeJonB]

If you want well detailed scientific answers from a true atheist I suggest you watch thunderf00t's channel on youtube.
I am not a scientist so I cannot dispute these scientific arguements, but thunderf00t explains it well

 

[itsmeJonB]

I personally enjoy his "why people laugh at creationists" series

 

[pjbleek]

So you should never question? Just accept or else?

So you are perfectly ok with just believing in something that cannot even be proved to be true?

If we are working on believing without proof, then your belief in god is just as relevent as those that believe in anything else that cannot be proven.
People who believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, big foot, reincarnation, ghosts, demons, flying monkeys, wizards, psychics, astrologists, etc...
They all are just as correct as you are since you believe in something just as unprovable. Right?

It is just simply a choice. not trying to sound crazy, but doesn't it boil down to the choice to accept or not?

 

[Diggin Deep]

I mean, humans are incredibly fallible...what makes us think we can even begin to know the answers to the origin of the universe and paint it as god? The best we can do is the scientific method!

I understand what you are saying, believe me I do. The scientific method is what led me back to God. Regardless of scripture, science, personal experiences - it still comes down to this - Is the proof enough for the individual to believe in a creator? Is there enough proof for the individual to call that creator - God? Can the individual have faith in God based on the proof he/she has found?

My answer is YES.

 

[Tim]

It is just simply a choice. not trying to sound crazy, but doesn't it boil down to the choice to accept or not?

A choice to accept what exactly?

You are leaving out so much of the topic. Why is there a reason to believe in god or not?

Why is this debate any different than one where we are debating the existence of fairies? Why do I need to believe or not believe of their existence?

 

[itsmeJonB]

I understand what you are saying, believe me I do. The scientific method is what led me back to God. Regardless of scripture, science, personal experiences - it still comes down to this - Is the proof enough for the individual to believe in a creator? Is there enough proof for the individual to call that creator - God? Can the individual have faith in God based on the proof he/she has found?

My answer is YES.

Well of course that's why its called faith. But for the non believer it is not enough, physical evidence and reasoned logic play that part and with faith you can dismiss that

 

[Tim]

I understand what you are saying, believe me I do. The scientific method is what led me back to God. Regardless of scripture, science, personal experiences - it still comes down to this - Is the proof enough for the individual to believe in a creator? Is there enough proof for the individual to call that creator - God? Can the individual have faith in God based on the proof he/she has found?

My answer is YES.

But why god? Why did you attribute all of this unknown to the god of Abraham and not the Greek gods?
If you are going to say that this is all attributed to a creator, then how do you go about picking which creator? Did you just fall back to what you were taught or heard in your formative years?