Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God
Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God
It is a wrong notion of the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics. It is very natural to believe in God.
Please
RegardsI would not say "natural." But "normal," yes, maybe.
Many people say they "believe in god," so i't's reasonable to call it "normal." And many people don't have the men al capacity to delve deeper.
I suppose it takes more 'mental capacity' to be an atheist than a believer? I'd say it takes more of something to make such an arrogant statement, but I wouldn't classify it as mental capacity.For sure, the capacity to "believe in" a God, with a capital G, seems to transcend any level of intelligence. We have seen apparently intelligent individuals here in the discussions argue, ad infinitum, the existence of an infinite god that listens to the prayful pleas of finite intelligent individuals .... in the hope that He (never She) will favour that finite individual over other finite individuals.
Logical? Intelligent? Only if you say so? But a closer look into the thinking of such an individual might reveal ulterior selfish reasons for holding, at least publically, those beliefs. Behind the scenery, out of public eye, those beliefs can be conveniently dropped in favour of day-to-day desires and more earthly pursuits.
I am not certain which is worse: arrogance or hypocrisy. What do you think?I would say arrogance is worse. Since we are all hypocrites.
But, it gets worse since only ignorance would drive such arrogance. It's all only opinion.So, Damian here has his beliefs. If I offer him respect for what he believes whilst holding none of those beliefs myself, how do you regard my dis-belief? Do you regard me as ignorant? Or arrogant? Do you presume you know so much about my life that you know I need to change this, or that, or my beliefs?
Or can you, unconditionally, allow me to continue in my dis-belief because that is my choice, my right, my walk in life? If you have any presumptions otherwise, I would call that arrogance.This is quite humorous, actually. You make a statement that believers aren't deep thinkers and then attempt to turn it around that I am intolerant, arrogant and over reaching.
I'd laugh, but it's a little sad.Now you are twisting my words to suit your prejudice. I merely suggested that some believers might not be deep thinkers, and left the question open for you and others to disagree. Yet you laugh at me and feel sorry for me. Is that indicative of deep thinking?
Did I say that you are intolerant, arrogant and over reaching? I don't think so. That was also put up for discussion.....but if you feel the cap fits then wear it.
Yet, as so often happens, christians must presume that their's is the only religion that counts and the whole world needs to fall into line
I rest my case and let you chew it over.Not twisting your words. Simply taking them at face value. Since the statement that 'many people don't have the mental capacity to delve deeper.' was made while commenting on believers it is implied that you were making this assessment of believers. Simply because 'delving deeper' resulted in non belief on your part leads you to believe you have arrived at the only logical conclusion and if one does not share that conclusion they have not 'delved deeply enough'
Arrogance? I'd say you be the judge but you've already posted comments which give cause to doubt your conclusions on such matters.Yes, I reach the only logical conclusions as they apply to my self and my life.
Do I say others must, or need to, come to my conclusions? No.
Do I say mine are the only acceptable conclusions? For me, yes. For others? No. Thus I offer respect for the opinions of others; even for those who have christian or muslim or hindu or any other beliefs, provided none of them look down on me for having none of their beliefs.
However if anyone, yourself included, presumes to treat me as in need of having any or all of your beliefs, then in that aspect you lose my respect.
When your beliefs seek to restrict my life unfairly or unreasonably according to your beliefs, then I stand up to you, fairly and squarely.
Your religion seeks to control others, to assume power, to create fear, guilt, to justify judgement on the basis of those beliefs.
Your religious presumptions can be used to ridicule, marginalise, oppress those who disagree. All the while claiming to speak on behalf of a man who, 2000 years ago is supposed to have preached a message directed at personal insight and responsibility towards one's neighbour. True love can only come from inner self-knowledge.
I look to my own inner understanding first and foremost, and the buck stops here. Any disagreements I have with christian fundamentalism are thus kept in better perspective....and I can turn my back on them as a waste of time and energy. They represent the Dark Side in my view.
Life has so much wonder and beauty to explore. This is my focus.You make all those claims here which I would respect but, oddly, you made a sweeping generalization in the post which began this exchange. A derogatory one. So one is left to wonder how sincerely you respect other opinions.
You also make some incorrect assumptions about my beliefs in this last post. Assumptions which I would challenge you to back up with any evidence that I hold those positions.
So, all I can surmise is that you don't hold the respectful position you claim.I did question the statement claiming belief (in god, if I remember rightly) was natural, preferring to see it as normal rather than natural because it's so common.
I also said that many do not seem to have the mental capacity to dig deeper, in other words to question the validity of those beliefs. And I stand by my opinion, although of cause it's open for anyone to disagree.
Some people will stick with their beliefs even in the face of credible evidence refuting those beliefs. I accept that there is a huge area of the unknown where we will probably never reach any absolute proof. Yet where something seems pretty obvious in opposition to a belief, then to hold onto a belief regardless would indicate shallow thinking, would it not?
If I have made presumptions about yourself and they are false, then state precisely what they are and refute them. Correct me. I have no problem with that.Is it mental capacity or a mental willingness to search beyond the belief...to put those beliefs to the test and accept what comes from it?
I disagree with several things here, but I'll simply address your last paragraph. You chose to make presumptions. Your choice is yours. I am not obliged to correct you and find the thought foolish. The question is why would another human being choose to fabricate a belief, a negative one mind you, about another human being out of thin air? I believe the answer to that question does not put me in a bad light since I'm not the one doing it.
Another good point: why....fabricate....out of thin air?.....many of us do it, regardless of belief or unbelief.
Maybe it's because some simply like to sow the seeds of argument.I, personally, would not wish to do that, i.e., sow discord through argument. Discussion, healthy and informant discussion, is different, in my book, because it invites other points of view, promotes dissemination of new information, new understanding.
Argument, on the other hand, often comes from closed minds that presume to be already in possession of the facts; closed to consideration of all further ideas.
My mind is now closed to the idea of a supernatural life after death and decay of my body. (My free choice, criticise all you like, it will make no difference, but no argument.) So there is no useful purpose to be gained from arguing that subject with anyone who thinks otherwise.
My mind is very open to discussing the psychological phenomena which lead individuals to "believe in" life after death.
Can you see the difference?Well, let's look at a 'made up' scenario. Say we have a person who makes broad accusations against a particular group of people. That person then makes false accusations against one person within a group he believes that person to be a part of. Would we then surmise that the person is interested in sowing discord? Would we assume that person were interested in healthy and informative discussion?
'Delving deeper' can only be done by the individual. And, the individual should understand what motivates prior to throwing stones at what he perceives to be the beliefs of others. I highly recommend delving deeper but I think the consensus has become that one must possess the mental willingness to proceed.
That said. I have no problem with your belief of what will happen after the death of this physical body. No one has possession of fact which can definitively alter any belief held. And, honestly, what does it matter? We will see what we will see at the end and whatever that is cannot be shared with the living. Now, you can lay claim that you are interested in open discussion but you have made it clear that you have a closed mind so; are you really capable of anything other than what you have displayed so far in this thread (which does not constitute even a semblance of a desire for open and free discussion without prejudice)?Yes, I have declared my closed mind on one particular subject. Do you thus regard my mind closed in all subjects? That would be illogical.
If you choose to regard what I am saying as contradictory, go back to what you have written in your profile. See if an argument between yourself and myself about our particular points of view is going to be edifying. You have not disclosed much of yourself, only tried to address a conundrum....without much success so far as I can see.
Give us a little more about yourself, please. That might make discussion here a bit easier and more constructive.The subject at hand is God. That is the discussion. You have a closed mind on that . I suppose you'd have to make comments on other subjects to determine if you have a closed mind on those. It was illogical for you to even bring that up.
I don't owe you anything about me. But, your comments toward me display another area where your mind is closed. It appears it wouldn't matter what I said since you prefer to draw conclusions and close your mind when you are in possession of no facts which would lead you to draw them.I have just looked through some of your comments in other threads. They, and the responses that you make to myself, even when trying to be patient with you, seem to show any further discussion would be counter-productive and a waste my time .... also of internet time and cell-phone battery storage.
So, wishing you a pleasant day and hope you find suitable correspondents.
Goodbye.LOL. That, at best for you, is a pot kettle statement.
No Jonny you are correct in believing or not believing as you see fit. My hope is that all would become believers but I am not equipped to judge you or anybody else. I am not some kind of perfect person. I do feel however through archaeology, history, Bible prophesy, etc that God has more than shown Himself. The rest I believe is up to us.
It is both natural and normal. Right? Please
Regards
Some rather interesting comments here. I can only speak by experience but my take is as follows:
Back in 1967 before chemo was even invented my Dad was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma. He went down to 80 lbs and was bed ridden. Nothing short of a miracle beat that disease and he lived 15 more years and raised us.God does help one if one prays to Him.
So why not to believe in Him very naturally and normally.
The experience of your family is heartening. Please
RegardsThank youPaar,
I am one that is without excuse as the Bible says. I cannot speak for any other but from my experience Heis as real as it ever gets.
Be blessed
Miracle; an event that violates natural laws.
Can you offer evidence that the survival of your father violated natural laws or do you (and others) simply not know the causes of his recovery and thus attribute it to a god?I can only attest that all of the doctors and the hospital sent him home to die after a very lengthy hospital stay. He would receive the last rites every Sunday. There was no medical explanation for his recovery. I do not know how you explain the unexplainable. It really is impossible to rationalize.
"I do not know how you explain the unexplainable."
It isn't that hard - you just say "I don't know". It's OK to not know everything, and acknowledging that ignorance is better than making up answers that we don't know are true or not.I guess it comes down to to each his own. I know my Dad thought his survival was a miracle and he was the one living it. I know his doctors thought his survival was a miracle. Beyond that I do not know.
That's the most honest and down-to-earth answer, Damian. Beyond that you are free to believe and express whatever feels right for your life.
I will never strive to convince you of my atheist points of view, but will explain some of them to you if you ask me out of pure interest. But not to enter an argument.
I ask any person who has a theist point of view NOT to say prayers on my behalf, because that is insulting my free choice and presumes that the person doing the praying knows better than me. Yet, if I ask a question out of pure interest it's quite likely that will be a cue to try and convert me.
Each to their own indeed!Jonny,
We are Americans and blessed to have those liberties. We are not all the same though. I think it is important to always have at minimum a basic respect for one another. I cannot speak for any other person but I am strong in my belief. It sounds like you are strong in your unbelief. Be well.
It is indeed each to their own. Some will provide answers without evidence, some will not. Some will make up answers and causes for events without requiring fact, some will not. Some are very happy to use random events to build their faith and belief, some are not.
It's what makes the world go 'round - the difference in people. And, someday, some of those choices made may even turn out to BE true - a guess, or even an answer concocted out of a desire for a particular answer, is not always wrong.
Take a goooooood look in the mirror and you're see the evidence and the proof that God exists. You are that evidence that God exists (Roman 1:20). One day when you get a chance do research on the amazing "universe within our head", the brain, for starters.
Or...you are absolute proof of Darwin's theorizing of evolution.
It being as we can see, and even produce, evolution but have never, ever seen, heard, touched or detected in any manner, a god (even the Christian version) despite thousands of years of effort, it would seem more likely that the mirror image is proof of evolving organic entities rather than an ET from another universe.
Evolution cannot produce or repeat the intricate detailed mechanisms of the body and its functions. The evolution theory seems to hit many road blocks and potholes when it comes to the continuation of the socalled evolution of humans, animals, and other life forms. Why have all these things stopped evolving? Shouldn't the process of evolution still be going on if not visually, maybe in a laboratory? It would seem that way.
And yet it can, and did. Nor has it stopped - we see evolution happening all the time around us. That we don't see it very often in large animals is because of the time frame necessary - we don't live long enough to detect it in our lifetimes or a dozen lifetimes.
Life did not just pop up on its own. Someone had to put the wheels of life into motion. An unbelievably powerful dynamic force, God Himself, has done this.
Your car or vehicle is not going to move on its own. It needs someone to turn the key to get it to moving and your vehicle needs someone to maintain its working parts (Hebrews 3:4). My viewpoint and faith concerning the existence of God is purely based on the Bible. One can look at the creation and the beauty of our planet earth, the infinite varieties of life forms, animate and inanimate things, our human bodies and the many back-up systems it has. Did the ability to think, smile, express emotions, the ability smell, taste, hear, see and other functions and actions of our body evolve as well? Absolutely not. God those things in place. No human or animal could make themselves over like that or this way."Someone had to put the wheels of life into motion."
Unfortunately you have exactly zero proof of this - only your (and the rest of the world's) ignorance of the exact, down to the cellular level) of what happened at each tiny step.
Nevertheless, the key you talk about is the energy all around us. That from the sun, from radioactivity in the earth, from the stars, from the wind and volcanoes. The universe is crammed full of energy and chemicals; that's all the "key" that is needed.
"Did the ability to think, smile, express emotions, the ability smell, taste, hear, see and other functions and actions of our body evolve as well? Absolutely not. God those things in place."
Easy to make the claim, but exceedingly difficult to prove and simply making the statement proves absolutely nothing. You may be correct in that a god (one of the thousands humankind has asserted exist) did it or you may not, but you have proven nothing at all by making the statement. Ignorance of the event is not proof.
There is no difference in the alleged existence of all atheists and a hallucination. Sometimes, as in the case of Christopher Hitchens the atheist or the hallucination disappears altogether.
I can't agree more to this, it's just so true! An actual fact.
No one has to prove anything to anyone about an individual belief.
My opinion is those who demand proof, on either side of this conversation, are desperately wanting someone to convince them of what to think. Those that weak minded will be swayed by anyone.You are absolutely correct: no one has to prove a belief to anyone.
But when that belief is presented as factual, then proof needs to be supplied as well, just as with any other debatable fact.Disagree. Atheists don't attempt to prove nonexistence. That is presented as factual. Theists have no reason to prove anything, anymore than Buddhists, pagans, spaghetti monster adherents or any of myriad belief structures.
Seriously, it's all just individual thought. Must vegans prove why they are vegan? Where do you draw the line and what gives you authority to draw a line for every human? Sounds horribly egotistical.Then you are speaking to the wrong atheists. Personally I NEVER state there is no God, merely that I have found no evidence to support such a statement and therefore do not believe there is one. Only a fool presents a pure opinion as factual. It is far more important in this life to recognize what we do not know than what we do know - until we can recognize the difference we don't actually know anything at all.
Vegans have no need to "prove" why they are Vegan for the answer is self evident; they want to be. They may do it on moral grounds (opinion) and a few do it on health grounds (more opinion) but it comes down to wanting to.
The line is drawn when a "fact" is given: at that point it becomes incumbent on the speaker to support their "fact" with more than personal opinions.If I state 'I believe in God' who's hurt? No one. Facts and a lack thereof, for spiritual purposes don't care about your feelings and, let's be honest; in this country with our laws in place to protect us it's just your feelings that are affected by another's belief.
"If I state 'I believe in God' who's hurt? No one."
You're absolutely right. But if you say "God says you must (whatever)" there CAN be harm, even great harm. And implicit in that statement is that whatever god you refer to exists; it is given as fact, but if it is recognized that the "fact" is but opinion then the statement that God demands a specific action is also opinion and need not be done.
So yes, for spiritual purposes it doesn't matter but we don't live in the "spiritual" world; we live in the "real" world, the world where it isn't feelings that can be hurt but far more. Up to life itself, for the gods have demanded uncounted human sacrifices in the past. Consider Sharia law (what God has demanded) and it's effect on women as just one modern example.I will agree that when one person pushes their belief as justification for telling another what they should do that opens the window to tell that person to prove they have the authority to make the statement.
Which is why, as someone who does believe, I've never assumed I, somehow, was in a position to comment on other's life choices or behavior. Except for my kids, since the judeo christian ethic does instill behavior patterns that ensure a peaceful society.As usual, when understanding is reached we're on the same side. Even the kids; while I might cringe at teaching children that a myth is factual, I would never interfere as it IS the parent's right. And duty, according to their beliefs, and when it comes down to it what do any of us have but our personal beliefs?
I'm not saying I taught my kids about hell. Just living life in accordance with the teaching of Jesus that are applicable in modern times. Belief was theirs to embrace or deny.
Kudos to you. My kids, with 5 of their own, do the same thing. Teach their kids how to live, but leave the belief to the kids to develop themselves; while they are non-believers the kids are exposed to many in their lives that ARE believers so they do get both sides. It is up to them to develop their own belief structure.
Only one's own awareness of God can prove the existence of God. Many know God through their own efforts to know God.
- ValKarasposted 4 years ago
0What we "believe" cannot be debated -- only what we "know", for knowing is based upon facts, which allows arguments of proof to be voiced. We can "believe" in anything, from a boogieman to Santa Claus, and that's where the golden rule makes the whole sense: "TO EACH THEIR OWN".
As long as no one is imposing their beliefs on others -- personally, I totally respect their faith. People have right to construct their private concepts around anything. The reason that followers of religion feel as if others demand that they prove the existence of their God is because they hold their ideas to be self-evident facts. When you present the idea that there is a God in the face of an apparent lack thereof, essentially saying you choose to believe in a concept that has not been proven to be factual after thousands of years despite scientific advancement in the field of our origins, you must now provide proof as to why you should not be written off as most-likely-delusional.
Fact: God is most probably a fictitious concept developed to answer questions we could not seek to answer properly in the past, but have quickly begun to advance toward in the modern era. Equally so, God is a concept used to press agendas of seedy individuals and regularly hides important philosophical wisdom behind as-of-yet-unreal claims for the sole purpose of manipulating the gullible into the belief system.
Completely unproven claims: God is real.
We can measure the distinct absence of God with all five senses, and even further with finely-tuned machinery developed for observing that which we cannot comprehend without it. However, we cannot do the same with the false claims to its existence. In a sense, the only proof of God is the value an individual puts on implausible, and in many cases, impossible concepts; that is not an acceptable, nor rational line of thinking by modern standards.It's been my observation that believers only feel the need to prove anything because random strangers approach them in a forum, demanding proof.
Being a theist has always been (during my lifetime) kind of like it's become like to be a conservative. People insult you, insult your intelligence, your critical thinking skills, etc. just because they have a different opinion.If you discuss any opinion in an open forum you are inherently inviting controversy. Equally so, if your opinions are based in delusion, manipulations, or otherwise unproven concepts then you should always be questioned as to your line of thought, lest you continue down that line of expression converting others without any factual challenge.
Competition breeds progress, thus controversy is born as well. Freedom does not mean a right to unchallenged ignorance, especially when that ignorance is expressed in the face of others.Unlike the existence of God, your point readily proves itself in many contexts. No need to thank me.
- ValKarasposted 4 years ago0
We can't prove what we "believe", only what we "know", because knowing is based on provable or disprovable facts, whereas believing is a deliberate mental construct that doesn't call for a proof, being enough to be experienced.
We can believe in a boogieman or Santa Claus, or anything else for that matter, and as long as we are not imposing our beliefs on anybody, I respect it as everybody's right to think whatever they want. Which is why belief is useless and can be dangerous. Belief, that is, that is basically faith. There's nothing wrong with opinions based in fact, or even hope, but they must be dropped as soon as they are proven false. faith is the end of logic and reason.
So I don't believe anything. I don't believe there is a god, but I also don't believe there isn't one. No one knows with any certainty one way or another and no one can.
So anyone who says they know for a fact either way is lying to themselves and others.
I only accept facts. No need to believe in them. And everything else is speculation. Why would anyone put faith in a wild guess? It's dangerous in several ways. If faith is lost, some people kill themselves. If it's wrong and acted on, well you get the picture. A Christian sitting on a bus is certain the guy next to him is a demon though he's never met him,, and the only way to get rid of it was cutting the man's head off, so he did True story.
So no reason at all for belief.
I doubt there is a god and in particular the Christian/Jewish/Islamic version. Why? I've written books about that, it's a complex long story, but as far as I'm concerned any conscious thinking being that created this mess has to be cruel beyond belief for creating a world where every living thing must kill something every day just to eat and keep living. Not only that, they have to suffer pain, physical and mental while be murdered. And in general, all creatures suffer pain and anguish for a thousand different reasons.
The Christian god is a tyrant egomaniac.... like Trump. lol.... And cruel beyond belief, were he to exist. It's no wonder the fundamentalists love Trump. He's just like their god.
But even if god (defined as that which created/produced everything) is a 14 year old with a super computer I'd still say he/she was cruel beyond belief for creating this too. Doesn't matter what moron did this.
Only if this is all just a natural progression of nature without intent does it all make sense morally. Energy = god.
So is there a god? I hope not a separate conscious one. But who knows? Nobody.Non believers are there because there are some believers. If believers stop believing then non believers would exitinct.
No one can prove that God exists AND, no one can prove that God does not exist..... He designed it that way according to His Word... You either believe it or you don't.
One thing is for sure... everyone will be absolutely sure when they close their eyes for the last time.If you cannot prove that He exists (and I agree with you there), why are you plainly stating that He DOES exist ("He designed it that way")? Shouldn't your statement be something like "I don't know for sure (or I would prove it true), but I think He designed it that way"?
Right. That's all anyone can honestly say. Anything else is a lie. Maybe not an intentional lie, but a lie non the less.
Related Discussions
- 19
How can you prove the existence of God?
by Animosity Reborn 10 years ago
How can you prove the existence of God?Write your proofs for the existence of God.
- 579
The Burden of Proof is on Believers
by wordscribe41 15 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists because it is by FAITH that we believe. It is by faith we called on to believe....
- 143
Can science ever prove the existance of God?
by Obscure_Treasures 13 years ago
In this advanced era Science has been able to invent new things....bt a above mentioned question still remains on back of my mind...
- 14
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so....
by Apostle Jack 12 years ago
Atheist say that they can't prove that God do not exist,so.......that make them just as ignorant about the matter as those that they say can't prove that He does.That is a clear view of the Pot calling the kettle black.Do you agree.There is more proof that He does exist than He doesn't.They don't...
- 235
Why do atheist and other none believers not accept as proof human existence Inc
by Kiss andTales 9 years ago
Why do atheist and other none believers not accept as proof human existenceIncluding them ?I ask this question because atheist are persistent with this line prove that God existBut as they are given proof they persist to say the same words, example a husband and wife claims to love one...
- 710
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?
by Luke M. Simmons 8 years ago
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?I am an atheist, which to me only means that I haven't been shown requisite evidence to convince me of an omnipotent, all-knowing deity of any kind. If you would, please bring forth this evidence and deliver me from a fiery...