Evidence for God

[TJ]

This thread is for the purpose of addressing some of the questions typically raised by atheists: Who or what is God? What demonstrable evidence can be presented for the existence of God? If God exists, why doesn't he prove it?

The Bible is a very good place to provide a good answer. In fact, one Bible verse covers it very well. In 21st century English, the passage reads...

"...what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them.  For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship,..." (Romans 1:19, 20).

Thus perception plays a very important part in trying to offer an explanation concerning the Creator.

"You can't prove that there is a God."

This kind of statement ignores that there are different kinds of 'proof'.

"Can you prove that there is a God?" asked Prof Lennox. "In the mathematical sense no, but proving anything is very difficult. The word proof has two meanings. There's the rigorous meaning in maths that is very difficult to do and rare. But then there's the other meaning â€" beyond reasonable doubt".

That's the kind of 'proof' we can present: arguments to bring someone beyond reasonable doubt.

Many, perhaps most, atheists would accept as proof of the existence of God only evidence they can see, feel, touch and take apart and reassemble in a laboratory setting. And, of course, that lab would have to be only where they would have unfettered access.

So, let us reason a bit.

How would I liken the Creator? Perhaps by looking at the problem in reverse. Let's look at the problem from God's point of view.

In Isaiah is a fitting description of the problem and with an element of reason comes understanding.

"There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers...." Isaiah 40:22

Could you rightly expect a grasshopper to fully explain a human being or human accomplishments like the Hubble space telescope? Or would you be humble enough to learn grasshopper speech and befriend them? Sounds foolish, correct? That is the dilemma.

Further on this line of thought is the difference between humans and chimpanzees is about one percent of DNA. On that scale what would a creature be like who was one percent greater than humans in their DNA? If their intellect would follow the same scale, could we ever hope to understand them? Much less be on par with them? And yet God is orders of magnitude greater than chimpanzees or grasshopper-like humans.

And here is one item we all see without any understanding. Something so basic it has no record anywhere in the Bible as having been created. And that even though many think it is listed among the creations attributed to God. And what is that? LIFE.

The Bible tells us this at Psalm 36:9 simply that the 'source of life is God'. Much has been hypothesized about life. Some have speculated about life having a chemical nature. Some have claimed that by assembling certain molecules together they have created life. But when pressed, they admit they can not and did not create life. It cannot be disassembled and reassembled. Some have speculated that life is a form of energy as yet not understood.

And there is God. If we go back to Romans 1:20 we see it speaks about the creation as giving us insight into God. So look at the creation. Focus on Isaiah 40:25, 26. "To whom can you liken me to make me his equal?” says the Holy One.

26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things?
It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name.
Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing."

Science today admit every star fulfills a purpose. Did you know we ourselves are star stuff? And even the super heavy elements seem to come from the collision of neutron stars. So not even a single star is missing.

Science also tells us eventually the universe itself will run down. Over 3000 years ago the Psalmist spoke of an immense maintenance project needed to fix the universe itself. Read for yourself Psalm 102:25-27. Makes for very interesting reading.

Oh. And DNA; Look at Psalm 139:16. "Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed.' Written more than 3,000 years before we had amassed enough knowledge on our own to understand, how would you explain that passage?

So, for a lowly human to define in human terms a being vastly more complex with knowledge and the ability to make and use forces beyond our comprehension, is at best an exercise in futility.

But a few things I do know. The Bible provides compelling evidence that God exists. It encourages us to build faith in God, not by blindly believing religious assertions, but by using our “power of reason” and “mental perception.”

The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator.

The Bible says: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4)

Although this logic is simple, many well-educated people find it to be powerful. For example, the late astronomer Allan Sandage once said regarding the universe: “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

Bible writers had scientific knowledge that was beyond the understanding of their contemporaries. For example, in ancient times many peoples believed that the earth was supported by an animal, such as an elephant, a boar, or an ox. In contrast, the Bible says that God is “suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) Similarly, the Bible correctly describes the shape of the earth as a “sphere,” or “globe. or circle (Isaiah 40:22) Many people feel that the most reasonable explanation for such advanced understanding is that Bible writers received their information from God.

The Bible answers many difficult questions, the type of questions that when not satisfactorily answered can lead a person to atheism. For example: If God is loving and all-powerful, why is there suffering and evil in the world? Why is Religion so often an influence for bad rather than for good? See Titus 1:6 Could it be the unsatisfactory answers to questions has caused you to be where you are?

So have I completely answered the questions posed? Probably not. However, at the same time, I hope I have made a good start and raised questions that honest, open-minded individuals will seek answers to.

You can ask me and I promise to try and answer your questions using reason, logic and the Bible. I like a good challenge.

[Mr.Obvious]

I have a question!

Question: would you mind making an intro thread first?

(Its kind of The polite thing to do.)

PS; we have a 'present evidence here' thread.

[Munch]

Pascal's wager.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKzqQ-IVxGs&t=315s

The reality is, that if god was real, he would have presented himself as proof that he exists. You as a faith follower have nothing at all that can prove he exists, besides a sea of ramblings about a cult that claims he exists, but otherwise can't prove this thing does exist.

And even if he does exist, he's a cunt, I've no interest in following the ideals of rambling buffoons who would tell me to worship a giant asshole.

[Sal1981]

Same copy+paste bullshit on a number of atheist forums.

Typical theist.

[SGOS]

The word proof has two meanings. There's the rigorous meaning in maths that is very difficult to do and rare. But then there's the other meaning â€" beyond reasonable doubt".

Beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof.  At best, it suggests that enough evidence has been presented that it surpasses the  threshold of reasonable doubt.  This measurement is used in a court of law, and evidence has shown over and over again that "beyond reasonable doubt" is highly subjective, morally flawed, and renders verdicts that terrorize the innocent.

Reasonable doubt has no meaning as proof.  It was never intended to be proof, and that should be self evident in the phrase itself.  What is beyond reasonable doubt for a skeptic is a much higher threshold than that set by theists and cult members who consider thought experiments about hypothetical talking grasshoppers as evidence.  From your nonsense above:

"There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers...." Isaiah 40:22

Could you rightly expect a grasshopper to fully explain a human being or human accomplishments like the Hubble space telescope? Or would you be humble enough to learn grasshopper speech and befriend them? Sounds foolish, correct? That is the dilemma.

Start with Isaiah's poetic sounding gibberish and suggest some mysterious but thought provoking metaphor lies at the heart of it.  "Heaven is filled with things like grasshoppers."  And that's not even the dumbest claim made by the Bible.  As if we should humble ourselves to understand the clicking noises of grasshoppers actually explain the truths of the universe.   I've got news for you.  Grasshoppers aren't that smart.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  I don't understand.  The greater truth of the grasshopper gibberish is lost on the atheist.  But if you want to make a plea for beyond reasonable doubt, don't fucking start with talking grasshoppers.  Absurd blather is not evidence.  It's theist nonsense, and it does not meet any reasonable criteria for being beyond doubt.

[PopeyesPappy]

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

[SGOS]

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

To the Christian, it is the premise and the conclusion.  A Holy circularity inspired by God.

[widdershins]

I read a little bit of that.  First of all, kudos for being polite.  I do like it when Christian apologists get to know me before they attack me.

Second, there is nothing new to this forum there.  There is nothing new to any atheist site there.  Your first argument is essentially, "Well, God created everything.  And everything clearly exists.  So doesn't that prove God exists?"  No, it doesn't.  You CLAIM God created everything.  A claim cannot be evidence for a second claim, which itself must be true before the first claim is true.

Third, we're not going to let you screw with definitions.  You don't need to give us a definition for "proof".  We know what it is and it's not what you said it is.  Mathematical proof is irrelevant to the conversation.  So why did you bring it up?  So that you could introduce a false dichotomy to claim that you had absolute, unquestionable mathematical proof on one hand and everything else on the other hand.  It was a way of insisting that only mathematical proofs could actually "prove" anything and, since God is not a mathematical problem, whatever you offered as evidence was "proof".  No, it isn't.

Arguments are not proof, as any lawyer or debate team lead can demonstrate.  Arguments are weapons to force a point, not evidence of that point.  There are college classes on winning arguments, and each teams position is often assigned to them arbitrarily.  A lawyer doesn't get to pick which side of the law he is on.  The defense attorney always defends, the prosecutor always prosecutes.  Sometimes they lose when they believe they are right, sometimes they win when they believe they are wrong,  If arguments were proof then the person with the winning argument would never believe his argument was wrong.  That's just not the case.

[SGOS]

Third, we're not going to let you screw with definitions.  You don't need to give us a definition for "proof".  We know what it is and it's not what you said it is.  Mathematical proof is irrelevant to the conversation.  So why did you bring it up?  So that you could introduce a false dichotomy to claim that you had absolute, unquestionable mathematical proof on one hand and everything else on the other hand.  It was a way of insisting that only mathematical proofs could actually "prove" anything and, since God is not a mathematical problem, whatever you offered as evidence was "proof".  No, it isn't.

Another great Christian deception.  Randy used a seductive variation. 

1.  He first conceded that one piece of evidence for God's existed might not be enough to prove existence beyond a reasonable doubt.

2.  Then he suggested (via a quote from some apologist), "However, several pieces MIGHT."

(At this point he's got readers in an agreement with two issues, and hopes that they are now conditioned to agree with further claims).

3.  He introduces evidence X,Y,Z, A, B, C, all of which on their own amount to zip.

4.  Now he recalls step 2, "Several pieces MIGHT," but switches the interpretation to "Several pieces DO."

5.  Having introduced 6 pieces of evidence, all of which prove nothing, he claims victory on the basis that he had already established that several pieces of substandard evidence DO prove God's existence beyond doubt.

This is presented in a convoluted wordy thesis to conveniently obscure implications from established agreement.  To someone reading it while watching a sitcom on TV, it might seem somewhat logical, although many readers would have acquiesced at this point due to fatigue.

[Jason78]

This thread is for the purpose of addressing some of the questions typically raised by atheists: Who or what is God? What demonstrable evidence can be presented for the existence of God? If God exists, why doesn't he prove it?

Hey look!   It's a man made of straw!

Atheists have one, and only one thing in common.    They don't have any belief in any gods.

[Mike Cl]

You can ask me and I promise to try and answer your questions using reason, logic and the Bible. I like a good challenge.

Hello, TJ--welcome.  Okay, let's play a little bit.  Tell me, what is your opinion of why there are two creation stories?  Gen. 1 gives one version and Gen. 2 another; and most seem to forget Gen. 1 altogether.

[Solomon Zorn]

So, let us reason a bit.

Maybe you should go first.

[Unbeliever]

Just another Christian meme junkie spreading manure in the hope it'll grow something. Or merely a troll of the Christian persuasion. I don't have time to read all that, so I won't bother to feed this one.

[Unbeliever]

Second, there is nothing new to this forum there.  There is nothing new to any atheist site there.  Your first argument is essentially, "Well, God created everything.  And everything clearly exists.  So doesn't that prove God exists?"  No, it doesn't.  You CLAIM God created everything.  A claim cannot be evidence for a second claim, which itself must be true before the first claim is true.

[Baruch]

Mathematics is circular reasoning otherwise no QED.  Physics is partly based on mathematics.  Therefore Physics is partly based on circular reasoning.

Physics isn't the results, if it is science.  Science is a technique.  The physics results says that masses attract each other at a distance (though a disturbance in that attraction can't propagate faster than a light beam).  The physics results also says that space-time are co-dependent, and that this continuum is warped by the presence of mass.  So is Newton right or Einstein right?  They have equations that are useful under some circumstances.  For ordinary stuff Newton is easier, so we use Newton.  For very special stuff Newton has a less useful equation, so we use Einstein's stuff.  And we don't worry which is true, Newton or Einstein.  As long as you have a good enough equation for what you are trying to do, it doesn't matter where it comes from.  This is how you discard Plato in favor of pragmatism.