Evidence God Exists

[Frank]

Thor and ace as I stated in my first reply I'm not trying to convert anyone.I'm not going to try and prove the existance of God.As for myself belief through a personal experiance is enough proof. Why do you press so hard for evidence of God yet are reluctant to give evidence that God doesn't exist. Could it be you have none.Don't tell me the burden of proof falls on me I'm not the one questioning His existance. Sorry that my writing is such a mess please bear with me.

Our ancient, primitive, illiterate, and superstitious ancestors invent a bunch of ludicrous myths (not only is the stuff absurd, but it isn't even remotely consistent), and now generations later those who still believe the stuff are saddling the rest of us with the burden of proving these bizarre ancient myths didn't really happen. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

How do you truly know god isn't Zeus or Odin? You certainly can't prove they aren't real gods (just like I can't conclusively disprove the existence of your god). But what we can do is discern what is almost certainly hogwash from what is likely factual. When I say almost certainly, in the case of your religion, there's such a slim chance of it being true it's not even worth considering (indeed if we were taling about any other subject society would openly berate you guys, but religion get's deference because so many people believe in the nonsense).

Relgion reduces to the absurd. That should be enough, but if you'd like I'll pile it on for you.

[Violet]

No the burden of proof is not on me.

Did you make an assumption from which you drew a conclusion? If so: then you have a burden of proof to link that assumption and that conclusion. Example of what i mean:

"Goldfish are blue... therefore my computer is fast." <-- If I make this claim... I must show why goldfish being blue is linked to my computers speed. Further... both the conclusion and the assumption(s) linking to it also hold a burden of proof (Are goldfish really blue? --> Evidence for the claim) (Is my computer really fast? --> Evidence for the claim).

I know through experiance that the God of the Bible exist.

Anecdote. Further... what you know is not necessarily also true. Perhaps you can construct these experiences into memoirs to explain precisely why you think that "the God of the Bible exists"?

I do not need to prove God to anyone that is a work for God.

....? What do you mean by the bolded qualifier? Also... if you would define 'need' as you are using it I might be better able to respond. I find 'need' to be a particularly ambiguous term... almost always reliant on the context to which it is applied.

You say my logic is a mess?

Yes. Your English too. That does not mean we cannot have a discussion however... it means only that a great deal of the conversation will be rebuttal and questioning of what you mean.

You say that you are not claiming there is no God does this mean you don't know if He exist.

I could respond to this in several ways... but ultimately it would be better for all involved if you revised this sentence. Were you asking a question perhaps? That would certainly fit the context. I think you were trying to say "You say that you are not claiming there is no God. Does this mean you don't know if He exists?"...

To which I would answer that I know there is no "God"... but that my knowledge of such does not mean I am correct... and further that I am fully willing to consider "God"'s existence.

If this is the case then how can you reject the claim there is God.

If I did not know wether there was "God" or not... then I would reject the claim that there is "God" until I see reason to believe such to be so.

I know God exist and I know that Christ is my saviour and I know many other things about God and I can't prove them to you and you can't disprove my claim.

Actually... we might be able to disprove your claims... depending on what you claimed. Further... if you had proof that "God" existed... then you could easily prove your claim. It's all fine and dandy that you know these things... but wether you are right or not is another thing entirely (and the thing of which we are discussing).

You can disagree with my claim,you can disrespect my claim,you can laugh at it,you can trample it,you can do anything you desire with it but just as I can not prove to you that God exist you can not disprove His existance.

Actually... I would be amazed to see somebody trample a claim. I wasn't aware such a thing was even possible

[AngelThMan]

Without further ado, here’s the evidence: Humans are the only species, out of millions of species, which have evolved into an intelligent life form. Other species live pretty much to eat and sleep -- survival. If our evolution were only a result of natural selection, shouldn’t other species, or even just one, have evolved into intelligent beings after millions of years? But the fact is that no other species have been able to develop science, literature, art, music and intelligent thought process as humans have. Isn’t this evidence that God exists?

Yes it is, and for several reasons. For one thing it corroborates what’s written in the bible, which is that God created man in his image, and that animals are inferior. But to truly understand why my evidence points towards a deity one needs to be able to appreciate the grandness of this gift that is human intelligence. And you have to ask yourself, why are we the only species, out of millions, that have achieved this type of intelligence? Evolution is about natural selection, but shouldn’t at least one other species, out of millions, have benefited from intelligence? I think so. And there would be a myriad of other intelligent species if there were no God. If you can appreciate the grandness and uniqueness of human intelligence, then you’ll understand why only humans were given this gift, and you'll know why what I've outlined here points to a God.

In law we would say relevant evidence is anything that makes any particular proposition or theory more likely to be true. On that basis you may say the existence of humans, considering the low statistical probability intelligent life could develop randomly in such an inhospitable universe, does lend credence to the idea of a deity...

I know you disagree with my views, and I'll respond below, but I want to thank you for at least addressing the real subject here. A lot of the kiddies on this forum have been sidetracked with pointless discussions about dolphins, lions, and cells that can take over the world.

...(and indeed absent any additional information I might agree with you). The problem of course is we do have additional information.

We don't have any evidence that disproves a God. If we do, can you explain?

I simply acknowledge religion is untrue; and god probably doesn't exist. Why - because of the evidence.

If you mean evolution, it doesn't disprove the existence of God. I support the concept of theistic evolution, in which natural selection is viewed as God's tool for creation. I can't claim to know everything, but I believe that what's written in Genesis could be symbolic. The bible itself says that there's a lot of symbolism in the scriptures. It also states that to God a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years. Perhaps this is a clue that the timeline for creation described in the bible is allegorical. Who knows? Apparently, the literal study of Genesis has only been around since the Protestant Reformation which started in the 1500s. Before that, the bible was taught and studied symbolically. I don't view science as God's enemy. After all, God gave man the intelligence to develop science. It doesn't contradict the existence of God, or vice versa.

The starting place for the analysis must be religion itself. If we start out quibbling over nonsense like the Kalam argument, or other cosmological arguments, we wind up skipping over the most important question. Where did our concept of a god come from?

This approach presupposes that there is not a God. Why would this be the starting analysis?

Cosmological arguments and other apologetic devices (e.g. intelligent design) are merely post-hoc attempts to justify a preexisting belief system (which is the exact opposite of how science actually discovers things).

When scientists explore the possibility of UFOs, they do not start out by asking why people believe in UFOs. They delve into other possibilities, not excluding witness accounts, which could be likened to the faith-based experiences of believers.

Didn't our concept of god come from the same place all the other dead religions in history came from? The more I've studied this issue the more I've discovered how conclusively theism can be debunked. A reasonable, unbiased analysis leaves no room for your god (William Lane Craig is flat out wrong - faith cannot be reasonable, unless you define "reasonable" subjectively). Indeed, according to the evidence, the first mention of monotheism in history wasn't even by the Jewish people, it was by an Egyptian pharaoh (who promoted worship of the god Aten). Archeologists have debunked the Exodus myth, evolutionary biologists and geologists have long debunked the creation account given in Genesis, indeed we've even traced some elements of the Hebrew bible to Sumerian civilization (e.g. the flood account).

Defunct religions that resemble Christianity do not debunk the existence of God. We don't know why those religions existed, or who influenced their creation, including God himself. Maybe the presence of God was felt in early humanity, and those religions were manifestations of such phenomena. I'm not sure there's a devil, but if there is, maybe he influenced the creation of those religions to cast doubt. Maybe God himself intended to cast doubt so that those who followed him did so on sheer faith. I'm not saying this is what happened. I don't know. Nobody does. The bibles states there are many mysteries that will be revealed to us later. I was just presenting some possible scenarios that don't preclude the existence of God.

There were numerous virgin birth motifs in pagan myths prior to Christianity; so why is the Jesus narrative so compelling? Simple, the Roman Empire adopted it as their official religion (and consequently it spread throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa).

Have you thought about the possibility that maybe the Roman Empire was God's vessel for spreading and upholding his word? I think what's important to note is that Christianity is the largest and most enduring religion in the world. The bible is the most popular book that was ever published. Maybe these are more clues that Christ's religion is the true one.

Another popular argument concerns the motives of the apostles. According to christian apologists the apostles had no possible motive for inventing this story; but I think that's patently false. They had every motive for inventing the story. If you were part of a small cult within a larger (but still very theocratic and superstitious) religious community, who claimed your leader was a god-man, yet that leader was executed like a common criminal, you'd probably look pretty foolish (and it's doubtful anyone would take you seriously, much less join your cult). If you wanted your cult and ideology to live on, you'd have to figure out some way to spin your leaders execution into a positive.

Though we've seen many situations in which leaders have been killed, and no new religion has been created. The point is who can say whether what you claim is true or not?

Do you know three quarters of all people during the first century, in the Roman world, were considered slaves. It's easy to see how a religion like Christianity could spread like wild fire in that sort of environment.

Again, maybe God's doing. Who knows? It doesn't prove God doesn't exist.

And all this doesn't even begin to address the particulars of the evidence concerning, for instance, natural selection (but I'll stop here in the interest of some semblance of brevity).

Too late :)

[Joe Bloe]

AngelThMan wrote:
We don't have any evidence that disproves a God. If we do, can you explain?

The Problem of Evil

It is claimed that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

But evil exists
- If God doesn't know about evil he is not omniscient.
- If God knows about evil but cannot stop it, he is not omnipotent.
- If God knows about evil and he can stop it but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent.

QED: God does not exist.

Apologists have come up with dozens of explanations for this "problem of evil" (as it is known), but every single one of those explanations have been refuted and the conclusion holds good - God does not exist.

To give you an idea of how serious this problem is for the religionists, it is worth pointing out that some of them have suggested that evil does not exist. Serial killers are not evil, they are actually good people... Not as good as you and me, but still good. And nothing evil has happened to the victims; the victim just happened to be in a place where there was a little less than usual amount of good!

The mere fact that apologists find it necessary to raise such a ludicrous defense of their God is enough to suggest that the conclusions drawn from the problem of evil are more effective than they would ever dare to admit.

[Violet]

@ Joe Bloe... you do know Arcanus is back... right?

A problem with the problem of evil... is that which seems 'evil' to you can be considered good by others. Hence what is really suggesting that "God" doesn't know about evil, is unable to stop it, or doesn't stop it?

Also... by 'stop it' you seem to be assuming that "God" would stop it in this material world. I believe that "he" made a Hell and Heaven, did he not?

[tackattack]

-If God doesn't know about evil he is not omniscient.
God knows about evil because he's created good and evil,

- If God knows about evil but cannot stop it, he is not omnipotent.
God can, and does, stop/suffer anything against his nature. It can be done in this "reality" or in the afterlife.

- If God knows about evil and he can stop it but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent.
God is not equally omnibenevolent. Anyone maintaing that God loves everyone the same is locked in wishfull thinking.

[fr0d0]

- If God knows about evil and he can stop it but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent.
God is not equally omnibenevolent. Anyone maintaing that God loves everyone the same is locked in wishfull thinking.

Proof pls hmmm... dunno. Isn't it that he loves everyone equally but people choose not to be loved in degrees? (eg those atheist scum get 1000° )

[Ace Otana]

Watson wanted to know why I thought God would create intelligence.I gave my answer based on my knowledge of God.I was not trying to prove God to Watson or any one else and I was not using intelligence as a way to give proof of God.Actually God is assumed in Watsons question so the answer I gave was based on that assumtion.

No the burden of proof is not on me.I know through experiance that the God of the Bible exist.I do not need to prove God to anyone that is a work for God.You say my logic is a mess? You say that you are not claiming there is no God does this mean you don't know if He exist.If this is the case then how can you reject the claim there is God.

I know God exist and I know that Christ is my saviour and I know many other things about God and I can't prove them to you and you can't disprove my claim.You can disagree with my claim,you can disrespect my claim,you can laugh at it,you can trample it,you can do anything you desire with it but just as I can not prove to you that God exist you can not disprove His existance.

No the burden of proof is not on me.

You are claiming the existance of god are you not? Then the burden of proof is on you!

I do not need to prove God

True, you don't have to prove it, however if you wish people to take it seriously your going to need some credibility. Like say...evidence?

You say that you are not claiming there is no God does this mean you don't know if He exist.

Your sentance is a little messy but yep. I don't know weather he exists or not. However I don't believe he exists. This does not constitute a belief. I lack belief in him but also acknowledge that I cannot know either way on his existance. It's you who's claiming here, so it's you who has the burden of proof.

If this is the case then how can you reject the claim there is God.

Same reason I reject the claim that santa exists or the tooth fairy or the invisible flying wardrobe in the sky. If you have no evidence of it, it can be rejected. "Claim without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence".

I know God exist and I know that Christ is my saviour and I know many other things about God and I can't prove them to you and you can't disprove my claim.

You KNOW this, you KNOW that but can't support your claims. If you have nothing to show apart from stories about your personal beliefs then I'm not interested. As far as I am concerned, you know nothing!

I can not prove to you that God exist you can not disprove His existance

I cannot prove that the flying invisible wardrobe exists and nor can you disprove it. I cannot prove the FSM exists and nor can you disprove it. So where does this leave us? No where really. God, FSM, Allah whatever you believe in. If there is no evidence to support it, it has no credibility and so will not be taken seriously.

[Thor]

We don't have any evidence that disproves a God. If we do, can you explain?

Why do believers harp on the fact that their deity can't be disproven? I can't disprove Santa Claus. Do you think he's real, too? I can't disprove the idea that Dracula and the Wolfman exist. Do you think they're real? I can't even disprove that Paul Bunyan didn't really exist. Do you think he's real as well? I can't understand why people demand evidence before they'll believe most anything, but this goes right out the window when it comes to religious beliefs.

Oh, and I can prove your deity doesn't exist. You believe your deity is "loving, good and just", right?

Then why does your deity kill innocent people? The Bible has many stories where this deity either kills innocent people himself or directs others to kill for him. This is not something that a "loving, good and just" deity would do. Therefore, your god is a contradiction and therfore impossible.

[Godscreated]

WOW! once again we've made that circle and are back where we started no one has changed thier belief/disbelief so where do we go from here?As I stated before I'm not trying to prove God exsits I'm responding to statments/questions on this forum.I use the knowledge (and yes some opinions) I have about God.

Sorry Watson I guess I did not make my statement clear enough HE created our intelligence this would not be difficult for the all powerful and all knowing God.

Saerules I guessing you live some place outside the southern US here trample means to try and stomp a thing out of existance.

Joe Bloe I'm guess some religions may claim that there are different levels of good (from very good to not as good) this is not true of christianity.Christians believe there is evil and the majority of christians believe compared to Gods perfect goodness that no one is good. Yes God knows there is evil He observed as Satan allowed evil to come into existance through his selfishness.

God can stop evil and has many times if God were to stop evil always then we would no longer have freedom of choice and that would make us unwilling slaves for Gods selfish use.This was not the purpose of creation. God is omniscient,omnipotent,omnibenevolent and omnipresent you left that one out.

Why do you say God created evil and freewill.Freewill is a right given to all and evil is a result of disobedience they exist just as God exist.