Proof of God - for or against???

Users who are viewing this thread

Panacea

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
Is the proof enough for the individual to believe in a creator?

If creator just means start of the universe, yes.

Is there enough proof for the individual to call that creator - God?

Not as it is commonly defined, no. Calling the start of the universe god as we commonly define it assumes far too much. Human-like or animal-like, perfect, loving, omnipotent, or vengeful, etc...we have no idea what started the universe, why, nor how.

Can the individual have faith in God based on the proof he/she has found?

Proof found by believers is faith alone, so yes!
 
  • 210
    Replies
  • 4K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Diggin Deep

Active Member
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
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

Your belief is that there is no god. That is where you rest your faith. I rest my faith in God, based not only on scripture and personal experiences, but on what I believe science has proven...

Diggin Deep said:
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.
 

Tuffdisc

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,024
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
15.13z
I believe in God and also believe in evolution. It is hard to comprehend that space has existed without being created without an entity capable of creating life
 

itsmeJonB

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,211
Reaction score
34
Tokenz
237.26z
Our existence has yet to be explained, the wonderful thing about science is that we are constantly learning and there is no hinderment in discovery. In religion you take mystery, make up a story, call it a miracle chalk it up to god and exclude science. That proves nothing.

The big bang is a scientific theory, as is evolution, but in science do you know what a theory stands for? If your argument is that its an educated guess then you're wrong, as that is many creationist arguments.
 

Tuffdisc

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,024
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
15.13z
Our existence has yet to be explained, the wonderful thing about science is that we are constantly learning and there is no hinderment in discovery. In religion you take mystery, make up a story, call it a miracle chalk it up to god and exclude science. That proves nothing.

The big bang is a scientific theory, as is evolution, but in science do you know what a theory stands for? If your argument is that its an educated guess then you're wrong, as that is many creationist arguments.

So can science ever explain why things ever started? Or how it started?
 

Diggin Deep

Active Member
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggin Deep
Is there enough proof for the individual to call that creator - God?

Not as it is commonly defined, no. Calling the start of the universe god as we commonly define it assumes far too much. Human-like or animal-like, perfect, loving, omnipotent, or vengeful, etc...we have no idea what started the universe, why, nor how.

There is proof enough for me to say yes, there is a creator. That's why I said, the individual. Again...it leads to where people want to place their faith - in self or in a creator...in this case - God. Why I choose to believe that the creator is God is another topic. I will do my best to answer that in reference to you and a question that Tim posed in this thread later.
 

Diggin Deep

Active Member
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Our existence has yet to be explained, the wonderful thing about science is that we are constantly learning and there is no hinderment in discovery. In religion you take mystery, make up a story, call it a miracle chalk it up to god and exclude science. That proves nothing.

The big bang is a scientific theory, as is evolution, but in science do you know what a theory stands for? If your argument is that its an educated guess then you're wrong, as that is many creationist arguments.

I believe science has done a good job of proving the need of a creator. And people draw conclusions based on their scientific evidence.
 

Panacea

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
There is proof enough for me to say yes, there is a creator. That's why I said, the individual.

I suppose that is assuming there is no objective truth, just whatever the individual feels is true? That's fine in a personal sense, but not when discussing proof.

Again...it leads to where people want to place their faith - in self or in a creator...in this case - God. Why I choose to believe that the creator is God is another topic. I will do my best to answer that in reference to you and a question that Tim posed in this thread later.

Just so I don't misunderstand you, do you feel atheism is faith in the self and religion is faith in god?
 

Siphorous

Anticipation
Messages
7,001
Reaction score
17
Tokenz
199.13z
What I have is a faith which developed without 'proof' so I have no reason or cause to search for proof. That's where I am at now.

Many years ago, I did used to debate these kinds of points with non-Christians regarding various sciences and have quite a number of books on these subjects but ultimately, the final step is a 'leap of faith'. And it's the fact that I had that 'leap of faith' that caused me to step back from debating these kinds of things - as that's what's important.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tuffdisc

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,024
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
15.13z
Like HK said, no one can ever prove something does not exist, but that doesn't mean it does exist.

Tbh, I just find it hard that out of nothingness, that we existed. I do see where you are coming from, but can't just believe that we have existed just because the 'big-bang' happened. There must be something or an entity (divine creator) that created what is on this earth and other planets
 

pjbleek

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,839
Reaction score
76
Tokenz
795.15z
why do you think the Apostle's never questioned Jesus? were they afraid? doubters? didn't give a damn? never bothered to put two and two together?
 

Panacea

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
Tbh, I just find it hard that out of nothingness, that we existed. I do see where you are coming from, but can't just believe that we have existed just because the 'big-bang' happened. There must be something or an entity (divine creator) that created what is on this earth and other planets

I think it is incorrect to say atheists believe life comes from nothingness, I think that is the perspective of people who are so used to the comforting idea of a heavenly father. I think most atheists simply suspend judgment on what exactly caused life.
 

itsmeJonB

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,211
Reaction score
34
Tokenz
237.26z
why do you think the Apostle's never questioned Jesus? were they afraid? doubters? didn't give a damn? never bothered to put two and two together?

David blaine and cris angel have entourages, doesn't make what they do any more than illusions
 

Diggin Deep

Active Member
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
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?


There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct. First, let’s consider some thoughts on the overall subject and then look at how one might approach the topic in a manner that can actually get to a right conclusion about God. The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.

How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason? Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well? Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.

This being the case, why should theology—the study of God—be any different? Why believe it can be approached in a haphazard and undisciplined way and still yield right conclusions? Unfortunately, this is the approach many take, and this is one of the reasons why so many religions exist. That said, we now return to the question of how to reach truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be used? First, we need to establish a framework for testing various truth claims, and then we need a roadmap to follow to reach a right conclusion. Here is a good framework to use:

1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.

2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus lived in North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.

3. Existential relevancy—the belief system must conform to reality as we know it, and it must make a meaningful difference in the life of the adherent. Deism, for example, claims that God just threw the spinning world into the universe and does not interact with those who live on it. How does such a belief impact someone in a day-to-day manner? In short, it does not.

The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help lead one to a right view of God and will answer the four big questions of life:

1. Origin – where did we come from?
2. Ethics – how should we live?
3. Meaning – what is the purpose for life?
4. Destiny – where is mankind heading?

But how does one go about applying this framework in the pursuit of God? A step-by-step question/answer approach is one of the best tactics to employ. Narrowing the list of possible questions down produces the following:

1. Does absolute truth exist?
2. Do reason and religion mix?
3. Does God exist?
4. Can God be known?
5. Is Jesus God?
6. Does God care about me?
 

Diggin Deep

Active Member
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Continued...

First we need to know if absolute truth exists. If it does not, then we really cannot be sure of anything (spiritual or not), and we end up either an agnostic, unsure if we can really know anything, or a pluralist, accepting every position because we are not sure which, if any, is right.

Absolute truth is defined as that which matches reality, that which corresponds to its object, telling it like it is. Some say there is no such thing as absolute truth, but taking such a position becomes self-defeating. For example, the relativist says, “All truth is relative,” yet one must ask: is that statement absolutely true? If so, then absolute truth exists; if not, then why consider it? Postmodernism affirms no truth, yet it affirms at least one absolute truth: postmodernism is true. In the end, absolute truth becomes undeniable.

Further, absolute truth is naturally narrow and excludes its opposite. Two plus two equals four, with no other answer being possible. This point becomes critical as different belief systems and worldviews are compared. If one belief system has components that are proven true, then any competing belief system with contrary claims must be false. Also, we must keep in mind that absolute truth is not impacted by sincerity and desire. No matter how sincerely someone embraces a lie, it is still a lie. And no desire in the world can make something true that is false.

The answer of question one is that absolute truth exists. This being the case, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all false positions.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top