Does God Exist? Proof of God from a Christian's Perspective

1. 66

   SaiKitposted 13 years ago

   A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:
   
   Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing!
   
   This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean it's illogical to believe it.
   
   Criminal judge doesn't have to prove 100% that a suspect has indeed committed a crime before she passes a judgment (how much evidence is 100%?). What they need is "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", and it is subjective as to what is reasonable. The sentence is passed based on the degree of confidence in light of available evidence.
   
   Often times, what the skeptics mean by "proof" is equivalent to making the subject in question (Such as God) visible in lab under the broad daylight. Let me put it this way: if God doesn't reveal Himself before Fox news, the broad sky, or CBC or in a U.S. laboratory to be dissected whatever, and if the majority of scientists will not confirm this God appearing in Fox is God Himself, then it isn't a good enough proof for them.
   
   The textual, archeological, circumstantial, testimonial, and scientific evidence alone is good enough for us to choose what belief to believe in. But for the skeptics, you have to open the Heaven before their eyes to constitute what they consider to be "proof".
   
   The double standard is that, they don't require this much to believe in unproven theories such as the Theory of Evolution. It's not like they have a time machine to travel back millions or billions of years to "prove" this theory true as in witnessing it in person, but many of the skeptics prefer to believe these theories because they "sound" scientific. It's illogical and double standard.
   
   The same evidence can support different assumptions. What assumption you choose is entirely subjective. You make the best guess with scientific and logical methodologies, and deduction or induction or other legitimate process. The assumption itself can often time be unproven. For example, the Theory of Intellectual Design and Theory of Evolution are unproven. They are assumptions. They are models. 
   
   Ultimately, every theory and belief is based on assumptions, including the Theory of Evolution. You can't prove evolution, and you can't prove any scientific theories (yet). If you can, it will no longer be a theory, and you will probably get a Nobel Price for the proof or operational experiment you manage to pull off.
   
   So far no one has successfully proved or disproved God to everyone's satisfaction, at least not enough to get an official recognition from an authoritative, prominent academic association.
   
   Scientists explain a phenomenon with theoretical models when the factual reasons of how that phenomenon comes to be are unknown, and when an operational experiment is impossible, unobservable, and unmeasurable.
   
   The Bible or any other religious belief is no more illogical than an scientific model.
   
   My hub will explain this issue of "proof of God" clearly:Does God Exist? Proof of God
   
   *******************************
   P.S. My previous experience in a sketch:
   
   Skeptic: You are illogical!!
   
   Theist: Why?
   
   Skeptic: Because you believe in an incorporeal God! You believe in talking donkey, talking snake, inerrancy of the Bible...%^&(^@&@#!
   
   Theist: So?
   
   Skeptic: You are illogical!
   
   This is called "Begging the Question", which is a logical fallacy. The offender of logic begs the question when his premise and conclusion is basically interchangeable, or circular. In this example, "You are illogical, because you believe in God, and you believe in God, so you are illogical".

   report
   1. 59

      Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If a false dilemma, then what are the other options to believing in a god?
      
      
      
      The difference between that and believing in gods is that theoretical models DEMAND falsifiability, whereas the belief in gods are absolute and irrefutable according to the believers.

      report
      1. 66

         SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The other option is, gathering as much evidence as possible, and determine what the odds are for or against a belief.
         
         See my hub"Does God Exist? Proof of God"
         
         
         The belief of God or gods is absolutely falsifiable if the belief is not true. It should be super easy to find something wrong in the Bible or other religious doc, if it is not divine, because the Bible is so thick and old a document. It shouldn't be hard to find historical error, textual error, versions disagreement, and obvious logical fallacies in it.
         
         If even I can find logical fallacies, contradiction, and inconsistency from my dialog with skeptics in so short a forum thread and post, how is it hard to find a single logical fallacy in an ancient doc if it's human invented?

         report
         1. 59

            Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            But, the options are still only two, to believe or not believe. I suppose another option could represent indifference, but that's about it.
            
            
            
            While I would agree with that, believers will not agree.

            report
            1. 57

               exorterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               this is one time I can agree with you. everyone has two options, believe or not,  every Holy Ghost filled Christian has seen that God exist, but for others this is just hearsay, we believe the written accounts of that He exists,such as the Bible.

               report
         2. 0

            Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            It IS easy to find false historical claims, false events, bad logic, and morphed interpretations of external events happening at the time. Secondly, this is not a "false dilemma." The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false [dichotomy], the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking.With regards to your claim of either Yes God exists or No God doesn't does not fit the requirements. It is simply impossible to prove a God does not exist. It is NOT difficult to prove the Bible is a fairy tale.

            report
   2. 60

      Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      YO! CRAZY DUDE! I believe in a god whom the stars and planets obey. Seen it. I believe in a god who stands outside of our time space. It was proven to me. I believe in a god who can make you see whatever he wants you to see, and hear what he wants you to hear (AND one who the word HE doesn't necessarily apply to)

      report
      1. 66

         SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The logical fallacies of "Appeal to Ridicule" and "Straw Man" that don't contribute anything to a thread.
         
         I call it word bomb. The bomber drop a word bomb and leaves.
         
         This is why believers are reluctant to participate in a debate. Skeptics resort to name calling, ridicule, "Straw Man", and etc, instead of logic and reason, like they claim they do.
         
         In terms of religion, it's hypocrisy. In terms of the skeptic, isn't it also hypocrisy? Where is the logic, cool, and reason some of you claim to have?

         report
   3. 72

      Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "Criminal judge doesn't have to prove 100% that a suspect has indeed committed a crime"
      
      A criminal judge may not need 100% proof but they do need SOME proof. Since there is less than 1% proof for the existence of gods the analogy doesn't really help you any. A criminal court is also not how we explore the reality around us and make discoveries, science is.
      
      "Often times, what the skeptics mean by "proof" is equivalent to making the subject in question (Such as God) visible in lab under the broad daylight."
      
      God is subject to the same burden of proof as anything else that people claim exists or is real. We have evidence that the Earth revolves around the sun (not the other way around), that human beings evolved from apes, that the Earth is round, etc etc. It seems that if a God exists, and is anywhere near as powerful as most theists profess, evidence would be everywhere. Invisibility isn't an issue, we have already proven the existence of plenty of things that are not visible (ie. our atmosphere). God does not get a free pass when it comes to science. We wouldn't give Unicorns or Bigfoot a free ride into our science books would we, so why afford God, something which is even more unlikely than bigfoot and a Unicorn, also get a free pass from scientific scrutiny?
      
      "they don't require this much to believe in unproven theories such as the Theory of Evolution"
      
      So dozens of transitional forms in the fossil record, Observed Speciation and the fact that we share 99% of our DNA with chimps counts as unproven? We've directly observed evolution happening and we use it our advantages in our daily lives (dog breeds, creating new plant forms, etc).
      
      "For example, the Theory of Intellectual Design and Theory of Evolution are unproven. They are assumptions. They are models.  "
      
      There is not theory of Intellectual Design, there is a poorly formed religiously biased hypothesis of design. There is a theory of Evolution that has been proven and the mountain of evidence only continues to grow.
      
      "The Bible or any other religious belief is no more illogical than an scientific model. "
      
      The Bible depicts talking animals and women being magically created out of ribs, and that's just the first few chapters. Science on the other hand knows quite well that snakes can't talk and that women cannot be forged from ribs regardless of whether it is us doing it or a magic sky man.
      
      Conclusion:
      
      You've failed to present any argument here as to why you think a God exists. You've offered no evidence or proof and instead straw-manned the skeptic position and attempted to claim that Evolution has no evidence backing it up. Evolution, by the way, has absolutely no correlation to whether or not a God exists. There very well could be a God out there but the existence of such a being would not suddenly cause the evidence for Evolution to be invalid. In short, you fail.

      report
      1. 66

         SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Titen-Sxull said "The Bible depicts talking animals and women being magically created out of ribs, and that's just the first few chapters. Science on the other hand knows quite well that snakes can't talk and that women cannot be forged from ribs regardless of whether it is us doing it or a magic sky man."
         
         What's your point? What is that supposed to prove? What's your getting at? So the Bible says Eve (not women, which is a plural noun) was created out of a rib, so?
         
         Are you going to say that the Bible is illogical? You are not going to "beg the question", right?
         
         I correctly predicted that someone would say something you just said in my hub "Does God Exist? Proof of God From a Christian!"
         
         Quote me: "The Bible said the creator enabled creatures (Humans) to speak, and in one case, it was a donkey. This made it the most unique donkey ever. If I said the biblical God couldn't make a donkey talk, would that make sense to you? I don't know why some anti-biblical-God people would bring up supernatural events like this and ridicule them, as if they are onto something. They act like they have caught me with my pants down, but I am really not with my pants down! No amount of reasoning could stop them from behaving like kids at this point..." Read More...
         
         And more on the rest of your points later. Let me address some other people's points first. I only have so much time per week!~

         report
         1. 72

            Titen-Sxullposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            What am I getting at?
            
            You said:
            
            "The Bible or any other religious belief is no more illogical than an scientific model. "
            
            I proved you wrong. The Bible includes complete and utter unscientific elements that are indistinguishable from fictional fantasy. There is no logic to be found anywhere in the idea that a woman can be magically formed from ribs, however there is logic and evidence to support human evolution from apes. The Bible is more illogical than a scientific model and fails to be anything more than a book of myths.
            
            I don't care that you "predicted" someone would say something like that, merely because you predicted that doesn't negate the statements.

            report
            1. 66

               SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               "I don't care that you "predicted" someone would say something like that, merely because you predicted that doesn't negate the statements. "
               
               The key point I was trying to make here was that I predicted your logical fallacy of "begging the question". You are begging me to question your logic.
               
               Let me explain:
               
               "I proved you wrong. The Bible includes complete and utter unscientific elements that are indistinguishable from fictional fantasy. "
               
               Again, this is you:
               
               You: I prove you wrong
               
               Me: How?
               
               You: You said, "The Bible or any other religious belief is no more illogical than an scientific model. "
               
               Me: So?
               
               You: It's wrong
               
               Me: How?
               
               You: because "The Bible includes complete and utter unscientific elements that are indistinguishable from fictional fantasy."
               
               You didn't prove anything. You just claim that the Bible is illogical because it has supernatural elements. This is circular reasoning! Your premise and conclusion are interchangeable (you incorrectly equate illogical and supernatural). Please go back to my first post in this thread and read the P.S. section again.
               
               To compare the Biblical belief with a scientific theory:
               
               The premises of the Biblical belief are
               1) God exists
               2) Bible is God's words
               
               Under these premises: one of the logical conclusions/implications is that supernatural elements can happen.
               
               This is part of the logical process. It is deductive logic. Logic governs the process of deriving conclusions out of a set of premises.
               
               A premise, an assumption, or a belief is never logical or illogical in itself. It's only true or false. But there's no point to prove it true or false, if you can it is no longer an assumption. (see my answer to xchrisricex)
               
               Logic doesn't find you the truth, but it makes sure the thought process in reaching a conclusion isn't flawed, glitched, and self-contradictory.
               
               Supernatural elements in the framework of the Biblical belief isn't self-contradictory.
               
               You can claim that it never existed, and that it was false, but you can't call it illogical.
               
               You can't prove that it never happened. However, I am not asking you to prove it. If you want to prove the Biblical belief wrong, simple, just try to find a contradiction in the Bible. In other words, Falsify the Bible if you can.
               
               "I don't care that you "predicted" someone would say something like that, merely because you predicted that doesn't negate the statements."
               
               Wrong. I predicted my opponent would commit this particular logical fallacy of "begging the question" by saying such things, and you said it. Therefore, I pre-refuted your statement before you even said it. And you did end up saying it.
               
               You should have known that I predicted it, because it was in my P.S. section in the first post of this thread, but you still ended up committing the same logical fallacy that many skeptics committed. You didn't learn from other people's mistake.

               report
   4. 0

      AKA Winstonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Quoting SaiKit, "Criminal judge doesn't have to prove 100% that a suspect has indeed committed a crime before she passes a judgment (how much evidence is 100%?). What they need is "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", and it is subjective as to what is reasonable."
      
      You basic premise is valid - truth, or what you call subjectively reasonable evidence, is indeed a matter of opinion.  Just as some judges convict innocent men, so some beliefs turn out to be false.  Neither case makes the initial choice illogical.  Logic is tautological, so it is certainly possible to construct a logical argument for God if you start with the possibility of a God, but this starting point makes the argument somewhat circular, with the only possible logical construction being that If God exist, God exists. 
      
      The problem arises from the fact that the conclusion - the logical necessity - is only valid within the system of logic.  Showing something to be logical does not equate to its being real.
      
      The Modal Properties cannot be used for contingent propositions, and therefore the starting point of "if God exists", being contingent, can never then logically prove the necessary reality of an actualized God - only the logical necessity of the "possible" God.
      
      In other words, all your logic can do is provide subjective evidence for the proposition that if God exists, God exists.  Hardly a crushing triumph for reason and enlightenment.

      report
      1. 66

         SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         My answer to Titen-Sxull seems to resonate with some of what you said, except your point on me being circular, which oversimplified my position as "If God exists, God exists" (Straw man committed, -1 on you)
         
         Quote Me:
         _________________________
         "To compare the Biblical belief with a scientific theory:
         
         The premises of the Biblical belief are
         1) God exists
         2) Bible is God's words
         
         Under these premises: one of the logical conclusions/implications is that supernatural elements can happen.
         
         This is part of the logical process. It is deductive logic. Logic governs the process of deriving conclusions out of a set of premises.
         
         A premise, an assumption, or a belief is never logical or illogical in itself. It's only true or false. But there's no point to prove it true or false, if you can it is no longer an assumption. (see my answer to xchrisricex)
         
         Logic doesn't find you the truth, but it makes sure the thought process in reaching a conclusion isn't flawed, glitched, and self-contradictory."
         __________________________
         
         The above quote seems to resonate with some of what you said.
         
         But is my position circular? As in "If God exists, God exists"?
         
         Quote from me: "You can't prove that it never happened. However, I am not asking you to prove it. If you want to prove the Biblical belief wrong, simple, just try to find a contradiction in the Bible. In other words, Falsify the Bible if you can."
         
         You can falsify the Bible if the Bible is false. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, but if you prove the Bible to be human invented (falsified), then the Biblical faith is destroyed from ground up by you. Next, you can move on to Muslim. But Muslim uses the Old Testament too, so you would effectively destroy Muslim, Catholicism, Christianity, and other religions that count on the OT or NT being divine.
         
         The Bible is certainly not circular. It is thick and old. It should be easy to falsify it, if it is false to being with.
         
         So, my position isn't circular and the Biblical faith is no less logical than a scientific theory.

         report
         1. 0

            AKA Winstonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            SaiKit,
            
            I really have nothing more to say to you.  You seem to understand that logic is a tautology, that modal properties cannot apply to contingent propositions, so that all of your posturing can only show that it is not illogical to say that if x, then x.
            
            I agree. 
            
            I don't have any problems with your attempts to prove with evidence your beliefs - because you rightly acknowledged that it is nothing but opinion, that it is subjective, observer-dependent.  That is the correct realm in which to discuss belief - within opinion.  Whether or not there is a God belongs in the same category of debate as whether or not the Loch Ness Monster and Sasquatch are real.   Some believe; some don't.
            
            But what you cannot do is provide a rational explantion (observer-independent, not surrealistic or supernatural) of how a being called God exists and what method this God used to create the universe from nothing. 
            
            Tilt  Game Over.

            report
            1. 66

               SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I never attempted to explain why and how God exists. If you believe extra-dimension beings (demons and angels) and above-dimensional being like God exist, then it is oxymoronic to "figure God out".
               
               If I create the game "World of Warcraft", and bestow willpower and consciousness upon the avatars (non-human-controlled bots). I can't possibly expect them to figure me out right? because I don't live in their plane. To them, I am above their dimensions.
               
               A stick man who lives in a 2-D paper cannot possibly figure out a 3-D being.
               
               However, you can find out if the biblical belief is believable.
               
               To me, the chance of it not being debunked, if the Bible is human written, is nil.
               
               If it is not debunked so far, then to me, there is 99.9999999% chance that it is true.
               
               See http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1284228
               for a full explanation.

               report
2. 60

   xchrisricexposted 13 years ago

   This is very well written, except for the fact that it is absolutely wrong. Noone can prove without a doubt that God does or doesn't exist, you are right about this, but you have a serious misunderstanding of the scientific term "Theory" as opposed to the common term "theory" it's kind of like the many contexts of the word "Bow". You probably believe in the germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity, maybe you're even familiar with Einstein's theory of relativity. Evolution is as well accepted within the scientific community as any of these, and is easier to actually prove. Take for instance the domestication of dogs. In a few short generations breeders can breed out genes they don't like in favor of genes they do like. How do they achieve this without the process of evolution? Creationism, on the other hand (i'm speaking specifically of the book of genesis, creation, and adam and eve) was conceived in about the 6th century B.C. This is hundreds of years before the invention of paper.On a related note,you claim to have both archaeological and scientific evidence of God.May i have some of this evidence?

   report
   1. 0

      Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      yes, one doesn't have to look back millions of years to make sense of evolution - it is apparent in our own generation eg the near-extinction & extinction of modern animals; scientific tests that show the proteins in our body are near-identical to eg the EF-Tu protein is identical in a chimp, 99% the same as a dog or cat, 94% same as zebrafish; 85% same as honeybee; 81% same as yeast. More recent evidence - there are over 100 naturally occuring amino-acids and over 100 naturally occuring bases that can be made into proteins and DNA, but in nature, all organisms only use approx 20 amino acids and 4 bases. 
      Organisms that look "simple" can have gene pools much larger than us eg amoeba has genome 200 times that of humans
      (source:  the rough guide to evolution by Mark Pallen). 
      There would not be enough gene pool from the animals and humans in the ark to give rise to the diversity of species today

      report
   2. 66

      SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Score!!! +1 on me for "well written" and +1 on me for being right. I guess.
      
      However, I said no one has proved or disproved the existence of God. I did not say "No one can prove..." (Straw man committed here)
      
      -1 on you
      
      Let's keep count.
      
      And let see if it is absolutely wrong...

      report
      1. 0

         Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         well you've clearly got a distorted view of yourself.  The score keeping sounds childish.  Is that why you have way less followers than you have hubs?  Your hub on proving the existence of god had absolutely no valid arguments

         report
         1. 66

            SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            For those of you who want to see my reply to her, see this
            
            http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1283991
            
            Just don't want to spam this thread with redundant replies.
            
            By the way, Bailey, did you use the "Chronological format" instead of the "Threaded format" for this forum?
            
            Because the "threaded" format would make it seem like I replied to you in my reply to xchrisricex. I was counting score with him, not you. But you seem to think I was counting score with you.
            
            The format can be changed by clicking buttons on the upper right hand corner. You can choose "Threaded" or "Chronological".

            report
   3. 66

      SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know what your definition of "Scientific Theory" is. Could you explain your definition of "Scientific Theory"?
      
      As for me, my understanding about "Scientific Theory" agrees with the following quote, as found on the wiki page--"Scientific Theory":
      
      "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.
      
      The Bible is falsifiable like I said in this comment, quoting myself:
      
      " The belief of God or gods is absolutely falsifiable if the belief is not true. It should be super easy to find something wrong in the Bible or other religious doc, if it is not divine, because the Bible is so thick and old a document. It shouldn't be hard to find historical error, textual error, versions disagreement, and obvious logical fallacies in it.
      
      If even I can find logical fallacies, contradiction, and inconsistency from my dialog with skeptics in so short a forum thread and post, how is it hard to find a single logical fallacy in an ancient doc if it's human invented?"
      
      and more quote from the wiki page of "Scientific Theory":
      
      In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises—"arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above)—which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is...
      
          ...something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.
      
      Note: The biblical faith has only 2 assumptions-- that God is true, and that Bible is His own words--and again, the fact that the Bible is totally falsifiable, and these 2 attributes (Few assumptions and falsifiability) make the biblical faith the boldest, most useful theory ever, based on the quote above.
      
      Doesn't the quote above sound like the following quote from myself in my original post?
      
      " The same evidence can support different assumptions. What assumption you choose is entirely subjective. You make the best guess with scientific and logical methodologies, and deduction or induction or other legitimate process. The assumption itself can often time be unproven. For example, the Theory of Intellectual Design and Theory of Evolution are unproven. They are assumptions. They are models.
      
      Ultimately, every theory and belief is based on assumptions, including the Theory of Evolution. You can't prove evolution, and you can't prove any scientific theories (yet). If you can, it will no longer be a theory, and you will probably get a Nobel Price for the proof or operational experiment you manage to pull off."
      
      Does it give me another +1 or +2 or more?

      report
      1. 0

         Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         give your self as many points as you like; I don't actually care.  While you're at it award yourself the "nobel price"  while you're at it (because you won't be getting a nobel prize)

         report
         1. 66

            SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Quote Bailey: "well you've clearly got a distorted view of yourself.  The score keeping sounds childish.  Is that why you have way less followers than you have hubs?  Your hub on proving the existence of god had absolutely no valid arguments"  see here
            
            and
            
            "give your self as many points as you like; I don't actually care.  While you're at it award yourself the "nobel price"  while you're at it (because you won't be getting a nobel prize)"
            
            
            I sense bitterness in you. Please just forgive those whom you think have offended you in your past. Don't let them cloud your reasoning and make you sarcastic.
            
            For those of you who don't understand what I am saying, please read Bailey's hub: Ex-Christian: From Believer to Skeptic
            
            Apparently, she has no problems with judging and hurting people like me, while I am just giving her my thoughts and reasoning on my belief. However, she complained about how other people treated her like how she is treating me now.
            
            I don't see a lot of what she complained happened to her in our forum, but she did that to me and others in her hub, in this forum, and in my hub as well.
            
            In fact, the Christians were treating her quite nice in her hub and in this forum, from what I see.
            
            Being sarcastic isn't part of reasoning. It doesn't help you find the truth.
            
            You should have been deducted a point or two for going off track and attacking the person instead of his points, but well...
            
            -1 on you.

            report
3. 60

   Master Lifeposted 13 years ago

   Proof that God exists is you are here and living.  Look at nature-it or we (our ancestors) didn't create ourselves.  Without God there would be nothing.  Everything starts with God-He is the alpha and the omega.

   report
4. 57

   J.R. Smithposted 13 years ago

   If you had proof, what good would faith be?

   report
5. 94

   thooghunposted 13 years ago

   You seem to try and parallel a "belief in evolution" and faith. You don't need to go back in time to witness evolution, it is self-evident and ongoing, demonstrable and testable.
   
   Creationists like to talk of transitional fossils (which is fallacy to begin with since every fossil is exactly that in nature) and the fact that they supposedly don't exist, or are unable to sufficiently explain evolutionary claims.
   
   I urge you to visit any fossil museum (or pretty much any large museum), which have cataloged physiological changes over time within the same species. 
   
   Here's an exhaustive look at our own history: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
   
   Due to its nature as an ongoing process, one needn't look to the past for answers. They are right in front of our eyes and entirely tangible.
   
   Criminal judge doesn't have to prove 100% that a suspect has indeed committed a crime before she passes a judgment (how much evidence is 100%?). What they need is "prove beyond a reasonable doubt", and it is subjective as to what is reasonable. The sentence is passed based on the degree of confidence in light of available evidence.
   
   You make my point exactly. Since we're talking about evidence, it is overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of natural selection. Give the facts at hand, what "judgement" should people take when it comes to young earth creationism? The existence of Moses? The earth revolving around the sun, the resurrection and an interminable procession of other claims?
   
   As David Hume (and most recently Mr. Hitchens) put it: What is more probable, that the laws of nature suspended themselves in your favor, or you have made a judgmental error?

   report
6. 61

   johnortonposted 13 years ago

   If One day when you faced some serious condition that death is just standing in front of your face. The only words you would like to speak at that time is "God please save me"...This is the proof dear. Everybody knows that God is exist.
   
   I believe that god is everywhere.

   report
   1. 94

      thooghunposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I have been there, and felt no such urge. And even if it were the case it is a response that stems from fear rather than reason.

      report
7. 55

   exPastorposted 13 years ago

   I'm just trying to understand what you say you've demonstrated here.
   What do you mean by proof of God? Is it 100% certainty and a done deal now?
   Is there a possibility that God can be disproven by someone else, or is that out of the question forever?
   And what does proof mean? What is the definition one can follow to prove the existence of the lochness monster for example? Cause you are not clear on that.

   report
   1. 66

      SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "What do you mean by proof of God? Is it 100% certainty and a done deal now?"
      
      Please reread my first post on this
      
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1280376
      
      "Is there a possibility that God can be disproven by someone else, or is that out of the question forever?"
      
      Please re-read this http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1283132
      
      "And what does proof mean? What is the definition one can follow to prove the existence of the lochness monster for example? Cause you are not clear on that."
      
      Again, please re-read this http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1283132
      
      Hint 1: Don't try to prove or disprove God, because by definition of "prove", and by definition of "God", it is oxymoronic to "prove God exists" or "prove God unexists"
      
      Hint 2: Try to falsify the Bible.
      
      Hint 3: You cannot prove the assumption of an Theory or Hypothesis wrong, if you can, it isn't an assumption anymore. The theory doesn't have to be a theory to begin with if you can determine whether its assumptions are true or false.  However, a legitimate theory and hypothesis can be proven wrong if it is false, stay away from the assumptions.
      
      For more info, again, please re-read
      
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1283132
      
      and this http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1282032

      report
8. 72

   Diane Insideposted 13 years ago

   Everybody always wants proof, if you think you need proof then you just don't get it.
   
   Have FAITH!

   report
   1. 60

      Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Seems to me, a Christian should be well aware of the proof. Though proof is not needed, it IS usually given to those who have embraced through faith, the truth of the divine.

      report
      1. 72

         Diane Insideposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly my point, have faith, and you will see the proof.

         report
         1. 60

            Woman Of Courageposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Amen!

            report
9. 55

   exPastorposted 13 years ago

   You avoided answering my questions. They were not answered in the links you provided.
   
   The questions are very simple, try again.
   
   a. What do you mean by proof of God? Is it 100% certainty and a done deal now?
   b. Is there a possibility that God can be disproven by someone else, or is that out of the question forever?
   c. And what does proof mean? What is the definition of proof that one can follow to prove the existence of the lochness monster for example?
   
   can you offer direct rather than trite responses?

   report
   1. 60

      Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      WANTED: GOD-DEAD OR ALIVE! We will dissect him, find out how he ticks, then put his stuffed cadaver right next to Loch Nessie, and Bigfoot. Charge a dollar for a photo-op. Do just like with Jesse, Bonnie, Clyde and Dillinger. Bullet ridden body on display! Could even sell snippets of hair for souvenirs! PROOF! Bah! Ignoramuses. BEND YOUR KNEE! He'll show you proof.

      report
   2. 66

      SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I already answered your question point by point, directly.
      
      Other people can read our dialog and determine for themselves whether I did it.
      
      "a. What do you mean by proof of God? Is it 100% certainty and a done deal now?"
      b. Is there a possibility that God can be disproven by someone else, or is that out of the question forever?"
      
      You are like a "Blind man" asking, "Is triangle a color?" "Is it a color or not?" "A shape can never be color?"
      
      My quote:
      
      Don't try to prove or disprove God, because by definition of "prove", and by definition of "God", it is oxymoronic to "prove God exists" or "prove God unexists"
      
      "c. And what does proof mean? What is the definition of proof that one can follow "
      
      again, please read http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/56973#post1283132
      
      "can you offer direct rather than trite responses?"
      
      My answers were so direct. Maybe you want an easier version?
      
      If you want a "baby" version of my response (no insult intended, you will know what I mean when you read it), read this.

      report
10. 66

    SaiKitposted 13 years ago

    For the sake of argument, let's pretend we have the following scenario:
    
    If I call myself God, and give humans a thick book that has been written by humans whom I inspired, and the book is flawless, accurate, foreseeing, and all.
    
    Won't the existence of the book support or validate or testify that I am God?
    
    On the other hand, if I just show up and call myself God, and perform miracles and play with lighting bolts, that alone won't prove anything, because "prove" requires falsibility and testability.
    
    Scientists will have to come up with new theories to explain my miracles tricks. Again, more theories that require "prove beyond reasonable doubts", and the cycle goes on and on.
    
    This was why Jesus often quoted the Old Testament to validate himself as the Son of God, instead of just performing miracles and claiming himself to be so and so without biblical support.
    
    God's presence is impossible to be falsified or tested, no matter what He does in our faces. His presence (as the Father, not as Son) will only scare the people enough to obey Him and please Him while He is still checking on us, but not to believe, trust, and love Him all the times.
    
    And what do you expect to happen when you see "God"? You expect no more than meeting the President of the U.S.! He might shake hand with you and ask you how you are doing, but this event doesn't achieve much. You get the bragging right and that's all. God hates bragging! If He already gave you the Bible, and the Bible is much more a testimony than His own presence, what else do you want?
    
    Even if God appears under the broad day light, it won't prove whether He is THE God or whatever. There is a limit to our observations and senses. According to wikipedia on fact and theory:
    
    Philosophers of science argue that we do not know anything with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend on assumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.
    
    The Bible, however, is the best way to validate the entire biblical belief system, by our failing to disprove its testimonies. The odds of such a book not contradicting itself, of its prophecies being fulfilled one by one, of its accurate predictions of human behaviors, of its...blah blah, are much less than me being struck by lightnings 10 times in one day and not die.
    
    In other words, you know that the odds of me being struck by lightnings 10 times in one day is nil, and me being struck like that and not die is also nil. If the Bible is not debunked, the odds of that are much less than nil. By that, you know that Biblical belief is believable. You can now put your faith in the Bible, and the biblical God.
    
    This was why I believed in the biblical God since I was 6, and have been re-evaluated my faith times and again ever since, and remained a believer. Guess a kid see it better than adults?
    
    "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to babes." Matthew 11:25
    
    Jesus owned.

    report
    1. 60

       Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       To enter into heaven, you must become as a little child.... it is written.

       report
11. 55

    exPastorposted 13 years ago

    saikit
    Is this what you said?
    “Don't try to prove or disprove God, because by definition of "prove", and by definition of "God", it is oxymoronic to "prove God exists" or "prove God unexists"
    
    If so then by your own admission you haven’t proven God because its oxymoronic. And your title for this thread is false and misleading. This is not a proof at all. It is only a presentation for making you happy, like a myth.
    
    Again, you cannot define what the word proof means, and you like going off in various directions and sending people to read links of tons of irrelevant pages. This is a tactic people do when they don’t want to answer questions directly. When they want to avoid the questions in order to protect their false position.
    
    
    You said, “You are like a "Blind man"
    
    Attacking people who show this thread to fail is not nice.
    And that is a disgusting comment about blind people.
    What do you have against blind people? Why the hatred and poking fun?
    My father is blind. What do you hate about that?
    Don’t you have any shame? Are your parents around? I’d like to have a word with them. Dont they monitor your internet activities?
    Also not nice of you to attack that woman who posted earlier, Bailey.

    report
    1. 66

       SaiKitposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       The blind man analogy is an analogy. Don't get over-excited for catching me with my pants down, because I am not with my pants down.
       
       No wonder people accuse the Bible for hatred language. Just because a post contain the term "blind" or mentioned "blind people", so what? Are you ashamed of the blind being mentioned? Are you one of those people who like to keep handicap people at home instead of letting them out?
       
       You think you can use the "handicap card" like people who use the "race card"?
       
       Let me tell you this, a born blinded man cannot perceive color, nor can he understand the concept of color. That's what I have to say about blind man. There is nothing I hate about the blind.
       
       This is why I said to you, "You are like a "Blind man" asking, "Is triangle a color?" "Is it a color or not?" "A shape can never be color?" "
       
       If you want me to write an essay of what I think about blind people, I am not afraid. I can go on and on. Just because I mentioned a blind man in one of my post means nothing.
       
       In fact, the Bible promotes miracle healing for the blinds. If you choose to not believe, if you choose to not enlist God's help for your father, then I guess that's your personal decision. Don't shift your anger and blame to people who are not responsible.
       
       Stop twisting the opponents' arguments here like people do when they feel insecure.
       
       Again I will let our dialog sits out for other people to judge. Since you don't seem to respond and understand a direct answer.

       report
       1. 55

          exPastorposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          
          
          
          
          Keeping blind people at home? Not letting them out?
          That is hate speech. Very very vile hate speech.
          
          "In fact, the Bible promotes miracle healing for the blinds. If you choose to not believe, if you choose to not enlist God's help for your father, then I guess that's your personal decision."
          
          So my father is blind because I don't believe in the bible?
          That is very vile hate speech for the blind people. What kind of a person are you????
          
          Race card?
          Why do you use such hate speech against a black person?
          So when black people complain about your hate speech and rude behavior, you tell the black person he is using a "race card"?
          
          You don't think black people are human beings?
          There is only one race, the human race!
          Do your parents know what you are doing to people?

          report
    2. 60

       Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Cool dude, don't want to make him cry. The fact that someone is unreceptive to others ideas is rather problematic since the forum was generated, one would suppose, to glean what can be from others. Being here and presenting the forum denotes an insecurity of the person's own belief system. OR he is trying to start his own cult and is secretly seeking out adherents via the hub pages.

       report