There is no proof that God exists

[Gregg]

I disagree that Jesus is proof of the existence of G-d.

Even if we accept, for sake of argument, that Jesus' resurrection is true because it was corroborated by credible witnesses (so hard for me to say that, but...), it doesn't change the fact that there is no real world proof of the existence an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent G-d, let alone an active/responsive one, rather than just a name/concept we can assign to an unknown presumed "original catalyst" for the Big Bang and everything that succeeded it.

What would you accept as proof?

[Gregg]

Gregg -
But they are not proof that God exists - specifically. Their actions show that they believed Jesus to be God. Im playing devil's advocate here --- just because they believed it doesnt mean that he was God or that God actually exists. He was charismatic and got people to follow him, which is not necessarily proof that God exists. Again, their witness establishes that they believe Jesus was the manifestation of the Messiah.

You need something else to establish that God, the creator, actually exists.

The actions of the disciples and their conversion, the use of women as the primary witness to the resurrection are both standard apologetics arguments which can be used to support Christ as God.

However, Fresno is asking for something a bit less specific - while asking for specific examples that God exists. He is not looking for the Christian manifestation - he is looking for proof that that God exists.

What would you accept as proof?

[baldgriff]

You dont have to prove it to me... That question is for Fresno to provide an answer to.

[heyelander]

Even if we accept, for sake of argument, that Jesus' resurrection is true because it was corroborated by credible witnesses (so hard for me to say that, but...)

That's as much evidence of aliens with a different life-cycle than it is that there's a god...

[Gregg]

I think both sides are talking past each other.

Fresno is asking for proof that God exists.
Gregg - you are coming at this from your perspective that Jesus is God. However, that is not proof of God. That is more along the lines of "how God manifested himself". For sake of this argument using standard apologetics wont suffice as Fresno is not asking for you to prove that Jesus is God. You first have to establish that there is a God before you can define that God as Jesus.

Actually we were having a much different conversation. The thread morphed into "proof" request/demand at post #32.

This is not an uncommon thing for atheists to eventually demand if we are giving some type of plausible answers along the way.

It is interesting to me that some say they want proof of a supernatural God, but work very hard to discredit anything supernatural. Or just call it out of bounds.

I am attempting to give my thoughts on what I consider proof without quoting Bible verses. You are telling me I am doing it wrong and then proceed to tell what I need to do.

How would you suggest I would first establish that there is God?

Just for the record I am not typing this with any frustration, angst or negative thoughts. I am just trying to continue what I think has been a pretty good conversation.

[TranaGreg]

Actually we were having a much different conversation. The thread morphed into "proof" request/demand at post #32. ...

well, the thread is titled "There is no proof that God exists". So there's that.

And re: what would be accepted as proof, he did state this:

sure, but then they go and test that belief using the scientific method.

The scientific method is a pretty well accepted process.

[baldgriff]

Actually we were having a much different conversation. The thread morphed into "proof" request/demand at post #32.

This is not an uncommon thing for atheists to eventually demand if we are giving some type of plausible answers along the way.

It is interesting to me that some say they want proof of a supernatural God, but work very hard to discredit anything supernatural. Or just call it out of bounds.

I am attempting to give my thoughts on what I consider proof without quoting Bible verses. You are telling me I am doing it wrong and then proceed to tell what I need to do.

How would you suggest I would first establish that there is God?

Just for the record I am not typing this with any frustration, angst or negative thoughts. I am just trying to continue what I think has been a pretty good conversation.

Ultimately, at least in my mind, what proves that God exists is twofold:

1) That the things we see in nature do not appear to be happenstance creations. All of the things here serve a purpose and progress/evolve in a manner to make them better and adapt to the changes in our environment. If you drop a deck of cards from a plane, it is immensely unlikely that the deck of cards will land stacked neatly and in order. When you look at our world - there is an order to it that is both beautiful and alarming, as I cant imagine complete chaos turning out so many varied and beautiful creations that have the ability to adapt, even at the cellular level.

2) The long line of varying religions that maintain very similar moral standards. You can find the 10 commandments in most any other religion - they just are listed or named something else. This moral code woven into the fabric of all religions makes a case in my mind that a God exists. We see over and over again that humans left to their own devices seem to be bent on destruction of each other. So who taught us that moral code, given that we tend to bent on the destruction of others. How is it that all of our religions tend to agree on a basic set of tenets.

Which then leaves me with the question - Who or What is God..... Christians believe that Jesus is the embodiment of that question. Until someone can accept there is a God - they cant accept God in any incarnation of the ways religions depict Him/Her/It.....

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

The scientific method is a pretty well accepted process.

50% of American political parties endorse it !




^

[B-Fly]

well, the thread is titled "There is no proof that God exists". So there's that.

And re: what would be accepted as proof, he did state this:



The scientific method is a pretty well accepted process.

Right. Observable, testable and replicable evidence of a divine Creator/Prime-Mover/Organizer.

[Gregg]

well, the thread is titled "There is no proof that God exists". So there's that.

And re: what would be accepted as proof, he did state this:



The scientific method is a pretty well accepted process.

Well sir, he actually made a statement and then went on to make disparaging remarks about believers over the age of ten.

I responded with this:

I was kind of waiting for this one.

I hope your views and opinions will not stop you from giving me wanted advice in the fantasy baseball section.

God bless you and yours.

I do not believe I have asked Fresno since he answered. I did ask a few more as I think it could be possible that their answers may vary.

[Fresno Bob]

You dont have to prove it to me... That question is for Fresno to provide an answer to.

repeatable physical manifestation, basically I'll need to stick my fingers in his hands and my hand in his side. I'll take D&D high level cleric stuff too, someone invoking god powers to perform verifiable, repeatable miracle-level powers. Belief doesn't cut it, myths don't cut it, old books don't do it

[Fresno Bob]

Well sir, he actually made a statement and then went on to make disparaging remarks about believers over the age of ten.

I responded with this:

I was kind of waiting for this one.

I hope your views and opinions will not stop you from giving me wanted advice in the fantasy baseball section.

God bless you and yours.

I do not believe I have asked Fresno since he answered. I did ask a few more as I think it could be possible that their answers may vary.

Gregg, given the lack of anything verifiable in present day, I still have to hold to the thought that there is no proof for any God, not just the Christian one.

[Gregg]

Thor #1-227

6 hrs. ago:

Archaeologists say they've found "Thor's Hammer." The artifact, discovered in Southwest Iceland, is actually an amulet made of sandstone and is thought to be the first of its kind

[baldgriff]

6 hrs. ago:

Archaeologists say they've found "Thor's Hammer." The artifact, discovered in Southwest Iceland, is actually an amulet made of sandstone and is thought to be the first of its kind

Edit to post a link to article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rotection.html

[Fresno Bob]

6 hrs. ago:

Archaeologists say they've found "Thor's Hammer." The artifact, discovered in Southwest Iceland, is actually an amulet made of sandstone and is thought to be the first of its kind

no way