jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (6 posts)

A preponderance of evidence of God

  1. janesix profile image61
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    Many say there is no evidence for God. I disagree. I feel there is a preponderance of evidence. He gave us minds to comprehend it too. We can deduce and figure out the laws of nature and mathematics. We can see the complexity of the biological world, and deduce the need for a creative intelligence to create irreducibly complex systems, like sexual reproduction,and the cell itself.

    A rational mind can easily see that the universe was designed. God gave us the tools to see this, by giving us our rational brains. I used to think God played hide and seek, but now I think he designed the universe deliberately with his signature so we could deduce his existence.

    Maybe our job is to figure out why.


    1. A Thousand Words profile image79
      A Thousand Wordsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I think there's a lot of opinion there. I would say that I disagree if you're referring to God as being some transcendent being that is separate from us. Would a father have a child, and set up some kind of elaborate, infinite Easter egg hunt, or would he like to be present for all of his kids life as much as he can be (and for his kid to know he's there and feel loved, be held, etc)? I think, if I had any spiritual or religious opinion, it would be that it's more likely that we and everything else are a part of something. We can use spiritual practice to recognize or we can live our lives without doing so. Are you aware of the Lotus?

      1. janesix profile image61
        janesixposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I don't know what Lotus you mean.

  2. Paul Wingert profile image77
    Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago

    The universe is nothing close to uniform or else none of us or anything within the universe would exist. For something to be intelligently designed, the creator has to be more intelligent that what is being designed. As far as the universe goes, there's no need for a creator, it creates itself through life cycles like we see on earth. A star dies, it explodes emitting the building blocks needed to create another star, with it's own solar system with the aid of gravity. The word "God" could be used to describe an actual supreme being or a concept. "God" can be used as a generic word for nature or forces such as gravity. Most people use it to describe an actual supreme being that sits up in a cloud and plays Sim City with all the living creatures on earth. As for the supreme being, there's no need to disprove the existence of God, one has to come up with a reason why God needs to exist in the first place. Humans have been worshiping deities since the early Bronze Age and there's about 4,000 gods being worshiped today. An old saying goes, A man without God is still a man, but God without man is nothing.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image81
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Disagree with your last remark. God is the causal force. Blueprints emerge from the invisible mind.

  3. Oztinato profile image70
    Oztinatoposted 2 years ago

    Basic commonsense alone verifies God's existence.
    Now there are also several scientific ontological proofs notably Kurt Godels "God theorem". This theorem remains MATHEMATICALLY unchallenged and has been thoroughly tested by supercomputing.
    I also have two proofs: 1. The Blame God Paradox whereby all arguments against God's existence start with the assumption that God exists, and 2. The fact that wisdom is based solely on universal ethics which can be seen also in the physical universe as well as in man's own consciousness.
    There are also the other standard models of logic on record in ancient and modern history which act as scientific proofs.