What proof do you have for a God's existence? Proof must be empirical, and canno

1. 58

   cyborg527posted 14 years ago

   What proof do you have for a God's existence? Proof must be empirical, and cannot be something vague
   
   "Look at the world around you" Does not constitute as proof.

   replyreport
2. 75

   carolappleposted 14 years ago

   If you are looking for something material that you can perceive with your five senses, that would be difficult to provide since God is not made of matter but is rather the source of the materal world. It is like me asking you to give me empirical evidence that you have thoughts.
   
   You believe you have thoughts right? But how do I know that? Can you provide empirical evidence? You can show me results of your thoughts such as this question or something you created, but can you prove that your thoughts are the source of these items?
   
   Many thinkers have made a strong case for the existence of God mathematically and logically. Try reading Pascal or C.S. Lewis. One thing that Pascal says it that there is enough evidence for God to convince people who want to believe and enough evidence against to convince people who don't want to believe. So it really comes down to whether or not you want to believe. Pascal also makes an excellent case for why it's the wiser choice to believe.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Valoric Fireposted 14 years ago

   The best debate concerning this was between Christopher Hitchens and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, John Lennox.  You probably will not see a better cerebral match up about the question and validity of religion.  John Lennox as a scientist and also a devout christian who gave numerous historical references in regards to what he perceived as empirical evidence.  Most would assume considering his background in the hard sciences, he would be centered on logic and order for justification.  This was were he based that irrefutable proof.  However, that perspective is open to much attack and interpretation. 
   
   Richard Dawkins gives a great argument against - being a scientist himself and looking at the anti-order/chaos and randomness of the evolutionary creation of life. As a result, I do not see the empirical proof based on what senses we have as human beings.  In essence, it becomes an easy cop out strategy to refer to the empirical by such bombastic highly self interpretative means of defining proof.  To be honest, if empirical evidence was needed - one must first come to define what constitutes empirical evidence in light of the question. There must be an agreement. Hard evidence no- soft evidence - yes/no depending on your belief, so in essence like the Hitchens/Lenox debate the answers were equally convincing but depending on your perspective unchanging.  In the end, if you are religious there tends to be a more"open" definition of what constitutes empirical which in my book seems highly dubious since that very "open" perspective is not all encompassing to other facets of life.  ie: religious fundamentalism.

   replyreport
4. 58

   cyborg527posted 14 years ago

   Ok, but carol, how is it that an immaterial thing can interact with a material thing?
   
   And so you know there is proof that thoughts and memories are not something you can see. It's been shown in studies that you can replace memories because theyre imprinted in proteins. Thoughts can be sensed as well, they're ultimately electrical and chemical transmissions. Your counter argument is invalid.

   replyreport
5. 59

   Owl In The Barnposted 14 years ago

   To keep it simple. Jesus.
   
   Also look at Romans 1 vs;20.
   
   Should answer your question

   replyreport