What would it take to prove the existence of a God?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyesOk, who else agrees that a 7 story wall of talking flame would convince you of God? I mean, if you saw that, would you immediatly drop to your knees and start worshipping Jehovah, or a different God?

 

Do I need to answer this one? I might drop to the floor and roll around laughing!

 

Seriously though, what about the Christian idea of a Rapture? What if it actually happened in your lifetime? You were standing in the checkout line at the Piggly Wiggly and BettySue just disappeared in front of you, along with half the people in the store.

 

1) As with everything else that is an absolute fact with-in Christianity, no two Christains agree as to what Revelations says or what the Rapture will be

 

2) as such, at best a very minor % of the pop would be affected by it. FAR from half the store.

 

But I do admit that the Rapture would be one of the few things that would get my attention.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes(Oh Freethinker, that hat to at least bring a small smile to your face, didn't it?)

 

Smile? Why? suddenly I am redundant!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: tinbud

I don't think a burning bush would convince people of the existence of God. Sure, it worked for Moses. But then if you believe what Christians say about God, you may also believe that God opened Moses's eyes. Look at the other examples of miracles that were performed in the bible. Many people saw them occur but still did not believe.

 

It is always amazing at how people will blindly accept something when it contradicts so many factual occurances. Or lacks any factual verification by well established history. Such as the bible. You talk as if just because it is in the bible, it actually happened. Yet we know there are many majory stories in the bible that have no valid support in history. Such as either Slaughter of the innocents. the earth stopping, ....

 

Plus there is the fallacy of trying to use a source to confirm itself, called Circulus in demonstrando.

 

Well, concerning evolution.. it's likely irrelevant although I made it seem to be more relevant. I should have focused on origin. So now my question is, do you believe the universe has a beginning?

 

No

[IrishEyes]

2) as such, at best a very minor % of the pop would be affected by it. FAR from half the store.

 

C'mon Freethinker, didn't you get my obvious Southern twist? My example took place in the Deep South, and you KNOW all of them are going up, right??? Didn't you get the references to PIGGLY WIGGLY, and BettySue? Can't you just picture it, right out of Driving Miss Daisy? You big silly-silly, of COURSE half the store will be affected. If it was less than half of the store, I would have said the Winn Dixie, because we all know what kind of people shop THERE! The other half will join the devil when he gets back from Georgia!!

 

(and before you all start with the slams, i live in the south, and as such, feel i have every right to poke fun at these people on occasion! it's all in good fun!!)

[IrishEyes]

oops. I meant pre-tribulation rapture. Not pre-rapture... there is also the theory of mid-tribulation rapture and post-tribulation rapture. In any case, if things occur as they are written, some will still not believe. I know that because it is also written that people will not believe. The point is that miracles and the appearance of the supernatural is unlikely to convince everyone of the existence of God.

 

tinbud, i think you will be surprised at the people in this forum that know the Bible. We have a Christian and an atheist that are constantly in Word wars, along with a few others that dabble from time to time. I know that the pre-mid-post trib Rapture is an important distinction for you, but Freethinker is right on this one. There is not a majority opinion among Christians as to the timeline of the events of Revelation. However, instead of fighting amongst themselves, the different denominations should just accept that there will be different interpretations until the actual event, and to publicly criticize each other's beliefs only shows the rest of the world how petty and UN-Christlike Christians can be.

 

I do agree that miracles will not sway people with hardened hearts. My hope is that there will still be an opportunity for people that experience things like the Rapture and other supernatural events but are not Christians to become Christians. That way, maybe even Freethinker will make it to Heaven!!! (That HAD to make you smile, right?)

[Vaigyanick]

Hello freethinker

 

A set with no element also exists and it is called null set.God is a null set in this sense.

[kwackett]

What do you think of the watchmaker argument?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyesC'mon Freethinker, didn't you get my obvious Southern twist? My example took place in the Deep South, and you KNOW all of them are going up, right??? Didn't you get the references to PIGGLY WIGGLY, and BettySue?

 

But then who'd buy Skoal?

 

Can't you just picture it, right out of Driving Miss Daisy? You big silly-silly, of COURSE half the store will be affected. If it was less than half of the store, I would have said the Winn Dixie, because we all know what kind of people shop THERE! The other half will join the devil when he gets back from Georgia!!

 

Hey, I always shopped a Wynn Dixie when I lived down there! Except in Nashville. where I shopped at Sunflower.

 

Er... OK. point proven....

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyesI know that the pre-mid-post trib Rapture is an important distinction for you, but Freethinker is right on this one. There is not a majority opinion among Christians as to the timeline of the events of Revelation.

 

CONTRADICTIONS, these are called CONTRADICTIONS. Thanks for reproving one of my old points. If the bible did not CONTRADICT itself, there would not only be "a majority opinion among Christians", there would only be ONE "opinion among Christians".

 

However, instead of fighting amongst themselves, the different denominations should just accept that there will be different interpretations until the actual event,

 

Or if they used LOGIC and REASON instead of desperation, they would not accept ANYTHING so lacking in credibility "until the actual event".

 

and to publicly criticize each other's beliefs only shows the rest of the world how petty and UN-Christlike Christians can be.

 

What it shows is what Christianity REALLY is. A philosophy filled with internal contradictions and a history of complete intollerance for opposing views, even from with-in. To the point of open willingness to kill the opposition, even with-in. Back to the FACTS I had PROVEN regarding Christianity being a personal philosophy which activelly allows for murder as a viable process for resolving dispute.

 

I do agree that miracles will not sway people with hardened hearts.

 

I love the attempt to denegrade people that evaluate events based on things that can actually be shown to exist. This absurd notion that reality can only be observed if you first agree to accept things that can not be shown to exist.

 

My "heart" is not any harder than any other old guy that eats the wrong food and does not get enough exercise! :-)

 

My mind however requires substance.

 

My hope is that there will still be an opportunity for people that experience things like the Rapture and other supernatural events but are not Christians to become Christians. That way, maybe even Freethinker will make it to Heaven!!! (That HAD to make you smile, right?)

 

I aknowledged that something of the level of the rapture would get my attention. Unlike Christians, I have no problem with admitting that I might be wrong. Nor would I have a problem acknowledging ANY supernatural event. Should one ever be shown to have actually happened.

 

I also hold out hope. Hope that people will eventually realize that such continuously expected supernatural events just will not happen. That after the claimed date keeps coming and a new date randomly assigned to replace it for continued subterfuge of those desperate to believe, some will wake up and see the obvious absurdity of it all. And further that they will allow themselves to evaluate FACTUAL HISTORY with an open mind. Not with a desire to pretend that something supports a fallacy when it obviously does not. And further, the attrocities that have been the continual historical reality of those that base their POV on such supernatural beliefs can be stopped by learning to live in logic and reason.

 

And based on the rapidly growing number of people in the industrialized world that are rejecting supernatural, religious beliefs, my hope is being rewarded. The most extensive survey ever done regarding religious affiliation in the US shows that over 14% of the US pop do not align themselves with religious beleif structures. A dramatic increase.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Vaigyanick

Hello freethinker

 

A set with no element also exists and it is called null set.God is a null set in this sense.

 

Agreed, the set of god's that could exist in our physical universe is a null set.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: kwackett

What do you think of the watchmaker argument?

 

That my battery needs to be replaced every couple of years.

[tinbud]

Couple of questions..

Can you give me an example where the Bible contradicts itself?

Does the universe have a beginning?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: sanctus

In physics for example I call proof what you call proof, that is an objective proof.

 

First of all - this is a very good topic for these forums.

 

I would like to point out that if there is anywhere where "proof" is not objective, it is in physics. In physics, as in any other science, it really make no sense to distinguish between "objective" and "subjective" proof.

 

We all come from somewhere, and we all have standpoints. Even when a group of scientists collaborate to bring forth proof of this or that, it will *always* be biased in one way or another.

 

(I could quote an endless list of philosophers like Nietsche, Kant, Descartes etc etc and scientists who have written about this, but look it up in a library or at Amazon).

 

Some exampes:

- more men than women on the team

- age differences

- different life experiences

- different religious/secular worldviews

- otherwise non-religious convictions, often unconscious (like dogma and accepted myths)

- measurements made with instruments which turned out to be flawed

- findings do not match expected results, so an unconscious filter can kick in (the "this just can't be so" factor)

 

So in physics proof is *always* up for discussion. That is why you can falsify a theory, but never completely prove it. You can never know if tomorrow will bring an observation that does not fit the theory. So you will have to rewrite the theory.

 

I think when it comes to a discussion of "proof" of God, talking about objective or subjective proof is fruitless (no offense! I think the topic is interesting.). I think what we are really talking about is how much evidence would you require to accept that a certain religion must be more correct than any other view the person has. Also, what level of accuracy do you require that evidence to have (ie, how able are you to criticise the "proofs" you are presented with, and how able are you to check that they are valid).

 

I think Freethinker's mission here is *extremely* important. Being able to see that proof is not just a matter of "this is the way it is" but that all proof comes from a human viewpoint and must therefore be critiqued and evaluated (and thus never take anything at face value) is vital in order to understand how the scientific method works, and why there is a clear distinction between "faith" and "conviction" on one side and "body of scientific evidence" on the other hand.

 

So it will always boil down to a subjective issue, no matter how objective we would like to be.

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: tinbud

Can you prove God does not exist? It seems then that our existence was caused by the big bang and evolution. Maybe there is another answer, I don't know. But the two must be linked. If God exists, the big bang can not. If the big bang or another theory of how we came into exist is true, God can't exist. So, how do you prove evolution and the big bang exists?

 

Ok, I'm wiggling my moderator finger here: this is a rather pointless post.

 

"But the to must be linked" does NOT follow from what you write and I have no knowledge that the big bang theory excludes a god. It simply pushed the ultimate cause of the creation of the universe further back (because as of today we do not know what happened before the big bang).

 

We have, however, direct evidence of the remnants of the big bang. It is called background microwave radiation, was discovered 50 years ago and is being studied intensely these days. This supports the big bang theory directly.

 

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that between the Big Bang and the beginning of evolution on Earth some 10 billion years passed. In this time span hundreds of billions of galaxes, each with hundreds of billions of stars, were born. Most of these now move away form each other, which points to the fact that in the past they were closer together (13,7 billion years ago, in fact). The only direct link between the Big Bang and evolution is that we would not have the latter without the first (if the Big Bang was the origin of the universe - which is NOT the only explanation for it). Read up on some cosmology to get a basic knowledge of what you are talking about.

 

It is hardly necessary to disprove god in order to accept the big bang theory. Your claim that they are mutually exclusive should require some more substantial input from you.

 

Tormod

[tinbud]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Originally posted by: tinbud

Can you prove God does not exist? It seems then that our existence was caused by the big bang and evolution. Maybe there is another answer, I don't know. But the two must be linked. If God exists, the big bang can not. If the big bang or another theory of how we came into exist is true, God can't exist. So, how do you prove evolution and the big bang exists?

 

 

 

Ok, I'm wiggling my moderator finger here: this is a rather pointless post.

 

 

 

"But the to must be linked" does NOT follow from what you write and I have no knowledge that the big bang theory excludes a god. It simply pushed the ultimate cause of the creation of the universe further back (because as of today we do not know what happened before the big bang).

 

 

 

We have, however, direct evidence of the remnants of the big bang. It is called background microwave radiation, was discovered 50 years ago and is being studied intensely these days. This supports the big bang theory directly.

 

 

 

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that between the Big Bang and the beginning of evolution on Earth some 10 billion years passed. In this time span hundreds of billions of galaxes, each with hundreds of billions of stars, were born. Most of these now move away form each other, which points to the fact that in the past they were closer together (13,7 billion years ago, in fact). The only direct link between the Big Bang and evolution is that we would not have the latter without the first (if the Big Bang was the origin of the universe - which is NOT the only explanation for it). Read up on some cosmology to get a basic knowledge of what you are talking about.

 

 

 

It is hardly necessary to disprove god in order to accept the big bang theory. Your claim that they are mutually exclusive should require some more substantial input from you.

 

 

 

Tormod

 

I was actually trying to get to a point that I stated later. First of all, I agree with your post prior to this post. Essentially about what level of proof is good enough. If I am not doing the post justice by para-phrasing it that way, I apologize.

 

Speakig of level of proof, the big bang theory certainly falls into that. Let me go back to my recent posts. Is there a beginning to the universe? The big bang suggests that it does. So my real question is, what was there before the big bang? Where did the matter come from that allowed for the big bang? Or the medium in which that matter was contained? This is the problem I have with the big bang. Out of nothing came something. No one has been able to explain it so it is ignored. Also, is the universe infinite? If so, how can it be expanding like the big bang says it is? What is beyond infinity for the universe to expand into?

 

Again, I agree with your previous post. What we believe is subjective. I don't know that the existence of God can be proven by any means. Either you believe or you don't believe.

[IrishEyes]

 

from tinbud...

Couple of questions..

Can you give me an example where the Bible contradicts itself?

Does the universe have a beginning?

 

There have been many examples given in a different thread of supposed Biblical contradictions. You will probably not agree that they are contradictions, nor will you be able to convince anyone here that they are NOT contradictions. If you believe that the Bible is more than a collection of juiced up fables, if you take it as the divinely inspired word of God, you are in the very small minority here. Even those here that believe in God in one form or another usually will not admit to believeing in the Bible. Apparently, that's an antiquated and extremely out-of-fashion (as well as incredibly illogical) way to live your life, or so I've been told.

 

As for there being a beginning to the universe, that will depend on who answers you - the people that believe in some form of God or not.

 

You summed all of your questions up pretty well with Either you believe or you don't believe. Just leave it at that.

[tinbud]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

 

There have been many examples given in a different thread of supposed Biblical contradictions. You will probably not agree that they are contradictions, nor will you be able to convince anyone here that they are NOT contradictions. If you believe that the Bible is more than a collection of juiced up fables, if you take it as the divinely inspired word of God, you are in the very small minority here. Even those here that believe in God in one form or another usually will not admit to believeing in the Bible. Apparently, that's an antiquated and extremely out-of-fashion (as well as incredibly illogical) way to live your life, or so I've been told.

 

As for there being a beginning to the universe, that will depend on who answers you - the people that believe in some form of God or not.

 

You summed all of your questions up pretty well with Either you believe or you don't believe. Just leave it at that.

 

Of course. I don't claim to be able to convince anyone of anything. It is my intention to leave it at that. I was meerly discussing this topic from a point of view. Thanks for the discussion.