The existence of God

Post Reply New Topic

Evidence Please?





well, the other thread was about wether you believe in God, now this is not about mere belief but rather about providing either evidence (physical) or ontological proof (and wether these actually prove something) or any other kind of proof or wether there can't be any proof at all.

I recognize that this thread most likely may end up useless, but I did it anyway.

Well..... I'd have to say that it is logically possible that a proof could exist for a "supreme being", and that it is also possible that repeated physical evidence of such an entity could lead us to eventually accept something like this. However, I'd say that in this world it is not possible that "God" will be shown to exist, simply because many of the notions have been shown to be incompatible with what we perceive and incompatible with their own internal notions, and even further, such a being very likely doesn't exist, and a non-existent being cannot *really* be proved to exist.

Probably not, given what an uneconomical assumption it would be to make and our ability to construct a general outline of nature without evidence to its tamperings.

Aw how cute making a thread to further address your insecurities.

The existence of a superbeing with unknown powers would be important if evidence is revealed that certain incidences or phenomena required its existence. So far this has not occurred although religious people will claim otherwise.

I do have another question though, how to kill straw-men.
And yes, I believe I'm cute, thanks.

In any case, I know this thread may not have been needed and likely may be considered a lame duplicate of the other thread. On the other hand, it addresses proofs of proposed truths rather than just beliefs, so your assertion of "insecurities" is completely irrelevant.

Then why post it?

That doesn't change the fact that you are spamming the forum.

If you believe that I am just spamming the forum PM a mod.

I could but we both now you are smart enough to know better (unless I am giving you to much credit I hope I am not).

I wasn't giving you any credit hence why I asked you to PM a mod.

well, the issue seems to be not only about the existence of a supreme being but also the nature of it to add to its mere existence, and I pressume that few ontological arguments don't work because of logical problems within in them, and that , apparently, if I stand correct, seem to make the pressumption of a certain nature of God, such as a personal entity and most likely anthropomorphized, which seems that those issues are not directly addressed in them.


well, I would say it would depend on which God we refer to, as in this case, it seems to refer to the personal christian god, however, considering the variety of ideas of the nature of God, how possible or improbable, compatible or incompatible that could get according to our preconceive reality?

A Methodist perspective here--not sure what poll option best fits this response.

If looking for proof through science and strict observation of the material universe--I say "no." Science was never intended to do so, nor, conversely, was religious literature intended to be a scientific treatise. (And when people on EITHER side cross these lines it irks me.)

If experiential evidence--the nontransferable experiences we have that cannot be measured but only known to the individual are included--is included, then I believe we can come closer.

In the end, I believe that we are given free will and that the preservation of said free will means that our will is not simply overridden...that we are given the freedom to make a decision.

So even by that definition, 100%, beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt proof will not be given in this life. I believe we can make our best extrapolation, and always continue pushing to understand better and better, but we will not have 100% proof in life.

No, that is what faith is. Belief, not knowledge. Please stop trying to mix apples and oranges here.

I think that one of the basic laws of physics as expressed by the Latin phrase ex nihilo, nihil fit, "from nothing, nothing comes" - or as Aristotle says, “Nothing is what rocks dream about" - is one of the proofs of the existence of God. And this personally leads me to believe that an atheist must take a giant leap of faith, which my atheist friends deny having, to believe that nothingness had nothing to do one morning and so decided to try something different...and so "poof" ... creation.

And also I think that the well-established law of cause and effect, which says that every material effect must have a cause, and which has no exception, is another proof of God's existence. (The laws of cause and effect do not pertain to God because He is eternal by definition. That God has neither beginning nor ending is the premise.)

My atheist friends, on the other hand, cannot logically prove that a transcendent God does not exist; because to do so would require them to know all the alleged proofs in the universe and beyond of God's nonexistence, which would require God-like omniscience on the their part.