Proof that God exists

[liljp617]

How can you not prove something doesn't exist? It would be like saying there is an Ocean in my backyard and you come over and realize, it doesn't exist.

Until you throw in the criteria that this ocean is:

1) Invisible
2) Untestable
3) Undetectable by any method
4) Is outside of our scope of understanding
5) Is outside our dimensions, but still maintains its position in your backyard

What you are trying to prove doesn't exist would be impossible due to the fact he is in another Dimension and Invisible.

err yes, this is why you don't prove things don't exist.  Because it can't be done in any logical manner at all.

It reminds me of the Matrix. What do you think is real? What you can see and touch? What about Schizo's? They see and touch that stuff.

Everything you see is a belief.  The idea that you're typing on a computer right now is a belief.  The idea that your head is attached to your neck is a belief.  There is clear distinction between belief and faith, however.  I've made this distinction before in multiple threads and don't feel like doing it again.

What about how people become who they are, that is so complex. Logically it's like yea, she is pregnant but somebody will be that baby. What decides who we will be?

Genetics and the environment the child is raised in, clearly.

You can't prove a God doesn't exist because either you would have to die and come back (no one will believe you if he is there) or you would need a picture.

Precisely why you don't prove things don't exist, especially when these things are extraordinary claims.

And thinking of that, this happened in the city where I was born.

Explain this:
Clearwater, Florida - Virgin Mary in the Glass
There is a building that has the image of the Virgin Mary stained onto the glass. The building used to be a bank, and now it has been turned into a shrine. You can buy religious candles across the street at Target, and they have chairs set up. It is free, but there are donation boxes, and I believe a gift shop.

This is an oil stain that was there after they cut down a tree. You see this kinda stuff everywhere.

uhh someone explained it in the very next thing you copy/pasted.  Do you read these things you copy/paste? From your own post:

"A local chemist, Charles Roberts, had examined the window and drew on his forty years of experience in analyzing glass. He explained that the iridescent stain had been produced by water deposits combined with weathering, yielding a chemical reaction like that often seen on old bottles. “The culprit seems to be the sprinkler,” Roberts concluded (Norton 1996; Posner 1997).

Indeed, as I walked around the glass-faced building with Dr. Posner and another local skeptic, astronomy professor Jack H. Robinson, we could see that there were other iridescent flow patterns on windows, each at a sprinkler location."

[Graeth]

Faith is belief without proof.
The essence of religion is faith.....therefor this topic seems kind of pointless.

[Falconer02]

EXACTLY. THERE IS NO RAW PROOF, PEOPLE. STOP POSTING YOUR FAIRY TALES.

[walksalone11]

Axiology: "The branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of value and the types of value, as in morals, aesthetics, religion, and metaphysics." Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd Edition

People are different. They do not look alike. They do not all sound the same. And they all think differently. Axiology is the science that studies how people think. Specifically, Axiologists study how people determine the value of different things. This is how individuals compare things and how those value assignments either represent or distort reality.

To value is to set priorities. It is to choose one thing over another. It is to think about things in relation to each other and decide that one is better than the other. It is to decide what is "good". All persons assign higher value to some things and lower value to others. People assign these valuations in a consistent pattern that is unique to them. This valuation process is actually one's habit of thinking. It involves filtering, processing, storing, and analyzing data. It includes thinking about objects, discerning the different aspects of things, making judgments, and choosing. Our unique pattern of thinking and assigning value is called our Value Structure.

People often confuse value with values. Values are specific items that people stand for, believe in, or deem important. To value is to think, to assign meaning and richness of properties to reality. A Value Structure is the thinking map a person uses to reach conclusions about things. Value is thinking that values are important objects of our thinking. People value to arrive at their values.

[Falconer02]

PEOPLE QUIT READING OUR SO CALLED FAIRY TALES.

You're clogging this thread with delusions and fairy tales...in a thread about proving gods existence. Nice work.

Sorry, it's a Free Country, if you don't like it then don't come in here, it works both ways

Ugh...forget it. I forgot I can't argue with you. Sorry.

[Rastov]

The stories are similar because they are products of each other, not because there is some supernatural force guiding a common story throughout each of them.  It's not exactly an accident that the Hebrew creation story shares great similarities with the Egyptian creation story.  It's not exactly an accident that the story of Noah shares great similarities with numerous other stories of global floods.  It's not exactly an accident that the identity of Jesus Christ shares great similarities with the identity of Mithra.

How is creating a geocentric universe and all animals and plants, etc, similar to a giant river plopping out several gods and creating a pyramid?
Those creation stories are about as different as can be.

The stories are a based upon one another and developed throughout centuries side by side.  Any rational person would expect the stories to be similar given mankind's cultural development and the development of these religions throughout history.

Are you sure you aren't talking about Babylonian mythology?
Those Egyptian myths are far older than their very different Hebrew counterparts.

[liljp617]

The stories are similar because they are products of each other, not because there is some supernatural force guiding a common story throughout each of them.  It's not exactly an accident that the Hebrew creation story shares great similarities with the Egyptian creation story.  It's not exactly an accident that the story of Noah shares great similarities with numerous other stories of global floods.  It's not exactly an accident that the identity of Jesus Christ shares great similarities with the identity of Mithra.

How is creating a geocentric universe and all animals and plants, etc, similar to a giant river plopping out several gods and creating a pyramid?
Those creation stories are about as different as can be.

The Hebrew creation story certainly takes aspects from other civilizations as well.  The Egyptian example is one of many and I used it just to throw out an easy, simple example.  As for their similarities:

http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm

They're by no means identical and the Egyptian comparison may not be the best, but it's really not that unreasonable to conclude the Egyptian creation myth was an influence.

The stories are a based upon one another and developed throughout centuries side by side.  Any rational person would expect the stories to be similar given mankind's cultural development and the development of these religions throughout history.

Are you sure you aren't talking about Babylonian mythology?
Those Egyptian myths are far older than their very different Hebrew counterparts.

To bore you with repetition, there are aspects of many creation mythologies across civilizations that show up in the Hebrew myth.  The Babylonian account is most definitely one.

Yes, the Egyptian myths are older.  I said the stories share many similarities because are based upon one another and developed side by side.  The Egyptian creation myth would fall into the "based upon" category (perhaps a better phrase would be "influenced by").

But the general point is this:  Many of these creation myths and other religious beliefs are similar to one another, because they share relatively common geographical/cultural origins or were simply pushed onto indigenous peoples of other regions.  They're not similar because there is some spiritual force/god(s) flowing through the universe influencing people to write similar things; they're similar because they're influenced by each other.

[Stealth3si]

The stories are similar because they are products of each other, not because there is some supernatural force guiding a common story throughout each of them.  It's not exactly an accident that the Hebrew creation story shares great similarities with the Egyptian creation story.  It's not exactly an accident that the story of Noah shares great similarities with numerous other stories of global floods.  It's not exactly an accident that the identity of Jesus Christ shares great similarities with the identity of Mithra.

How is creating a geocentric universe and all animals and plants, etc, similar to a giant river plopping out several gods and creating a pyramid?
Those creation stories are about as different as can be.

The stories are a based upon one another and developed throughout centuries side by side.  Any rational person would expect the stories to be similar given mankind's cultural development and the development of these religions throughout history.

Are you sure you aren't talking about Babylonian mythology?
Those Egyptian myths are far older than their very different Hebrew counterparts.

I probably know where you're going with this -- that the Hebrews, who lived in Babylon, took these stories and modified them slightly for their own creation and flood stories and since language and culture have been observed to readily flow from one culture to another, that this seems by far the most likely explanation for the similarity between these older myths and Biblical stories.

But the only way this has any bearing at all is if we assume that the Bible is wrong when it says it is God's Word. According to the biblical account, the story of creation and the flood later on both really occurred.

The Bible clearly states that the flood destroyed everything "under heaven" (Gen 6:17). But doesn't that assume the perspective of a flat Earth? Wouldn't it be more precise to say "inside of the heavens," or something like that?

Better, I think, would be to recognize that in few if any instances does Biblical literature intend to speak "literally" (or for that matter "figuratively") in the sense that 21st-century post-Enlightenment people understand literal and figurative language. We're so convinced that the best description of the world involves the latitude and longitude of a roundish ball of matter that we can't see that the contours of Biblical geography might be different from ours but still fruitful and accurate.

Now, how do I explain the Babylonian epics? Easily. If the Bible's account, then it would have been passed down orally. Men who hated God who obviously corrupt His stories to fit their own inventions of polytheism and pagan idolatry. Thus, the flood is corrupted to fit Babylonian mythology, as well as the creation account. Furthermore, you will note that the Babylonian versions have significant differences. Because they are the result of pagans corrupting God's true acts to fit their invented Gods, there are very significant differences in the theology in such stories. They are polytheistic and the gods are not seen as omnipotent and supreme, but rather much more creaturely, so unless you assume the Bible is not the word of God, his contention has no weight.

[Stealth3si]

But the general point is this:  Many of these creation myths and other religious beliefs are similar to one another, because they share relatively common geographical/cultural origins or were simply pushed onto indigenous peoples of other regions.  They're not similar because there is some spiritual force/god(s) flowing through the universe influencing people to write similar things; they're similar because they're influenced by each other.

These kinds of arguments were popular in so-called "history of religions" circles until several decades ago, but they were generally abandoned. Atheistic fundamentalists and some people who took older religious studies classes still haven't caught up entirely. The thesis was basically that Christian theology took its primary components from preceding traditions rather than from events which occurred in Jesus' life. Usually it works this way: Jesus preached an inner kingdom of hippie social justice, but Paul put Jesus in the framework of a "mystery religion" (a category of pagan cult contemporary with early xianity). It turns out that you have to read those pagan cults using the terms of Christian theology in order to make that case, but obviously if you're using the terms of Christian theology to read pagan cults then the thesis that the terms of Christian theology are basically lifted out of the mystery religions is false.

The stories are similar because they are products of each other, not because there is some supernatural force guiding a common story throughout each of them.

Consider the first paragraph on this website here, which I think parallels your point:

"What the ancient evidence will show you is that ancient western culture had a conceptual model of reality, and ancient Christianity adopted that model. Ancient Pagans believed in various levels of divinity, with miraculous powers, coming down and going up to its home in the sky. Divine beings cared about people, listened to and answered their prayers. Gave them the power to prophesy. Even gave them a better deal in the eternal life that comes after death."

So the facts are:
1. They believed in some sort of non-human beings.
2. They beleived that non-human beings had non-human powers.
3. They believed that non-human beings lived in places that humans don't.
4. They believed that non-human beings interacted with humans.
5. They believed that non-human beings could provide humans with non-human knowledge and power.

Obviously these are so vague that we would only be surprised if there weren't people all over the world who believed these kinds of things. This is basically on the order of, "Many people believed things fell from the sky in ancient times, so Newton must have gotten his laws of motion from them." (There exist much better examples than this website, but...)

Leithart offers the interesting epigram, "The Devil has no stories." In other words, because only God can create out of nothing, whenever we make anything it will always be derivative in nature, so any story we write will unavoidably reflect the story, God's story. Hence we get posts like some of those above.

So, are there similarities? Sure, but not any kind of similarities that show that the fundamentals of Christian theology were derived from the mystery religions as opposed to the life of Jesus.

It's not exactly an accident that the Hebrew creation story shares great similarities with the Egyptian creation story.  It's not exactly an accident that the story of Noah shares great similarities with numerous other stories of global floods.  It's not exactly an accident that the identity of Jesus Christ shares great similarities with the identity of Mithra...it's really not that unreasonable to conclude the Egyptian creation myth was an influence.

It is true that they all have some pretty exact details (of many of these early myths) that were a little more explicit than just generalizations, to a degree, but you're going to find two things the more you study them, in particular with the identity of Jesus Christ:

1) He still looks quite a bit different in other ways and really does come looking like their gods, but completely defying the mold at the same time. He is God descending to become man, and saving His people through a selfless death and resurrection that lifts him up to Lordship over the heavens and the earth. That story is unique.

The stories are a based upon one another and developed throughout centuries side by side.  Any rational person would expect the stories to be similar given mankind's cultural development and the development of these religions throughout history.

2) If we would say that just because two religions have similar images or themes, one must have come from another, then we simply can't explain the history of religion. These connections and themes are literally global. By making this argument against Christianity you would really, eventually, have to argue for one common mother of all religions, but that wouldn't really work very well with the rest of your worldview.

The Hebrew creation story certainly takes aspects from other civilizations as well.  The Egyptian example is one of many and I used it just to throw out an easy, simple example.  As for their similarities:

http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm

Already been dealt with from a previous thread.

[ivyruefthaler1]

revelations

[dkf32]

I know God exists and I don't have to prove it to anyone. 

[walksalone11]

I know God exists but I can't prove it to anyone. 

fixed

[Veryomally]

I know God exists but I can't prove it to anyone. 

fixed

You can fix it however you like, But, those who don't believe in god can't prove he doesn't exist either.

But that's besides what I was going to say, I am a happy Christian and instead of participating too actively in these arguments I let my actions and demeanor  speak for me and my faith

[Rastov]

Are you sure you aren't talking about Babylonian mythology?
Those Egyptian myths are far older than their very different Hebrew counterparts.

I probably know where you're going with this -- that the Hebrews, who lived in Babylon, took these stories and modified them slightly for their own creation and flood stories and since language and culture have been observed to readily flow from one culture to another, that this seems by far the most likely explanation for the similarity between these older myths and Biblical stories.

Not exactly... I think the Hebrew creation story predates their Babylonian captivity. I don't doubt the creation story in Genesis far predates the existence of Israel.
There is little doubt that the Canaanite religion was influenced by some of the same myths as the Babylonians(the first empire). As all archeological evidence points to Israel resulting from a peasantry revolt inside of Canaan, the story is likely of Canaanite origin.

But the only way this has any bearing at all is if we assume that the Bible is wrong when it says it is God's Word.

How about we take a neutral stance, and see where the evidence points us?

According to the biblical account, the story of creation and the flood later on both really occurred.

The Bible clearly states that the flood destroyed everything "under heaven" (Gen 6:17). But doesn't that assume the perspective of a flat Earth? Wouldn't it be more precise to say "inside of the heavens," or something like that?

Better, I think, would be to recognize that in few if any instances does Biblical literature intend to speak "literally" (or for that matter "figuratively") in the sense that 21st-century post-Enlightenment people understand literal and figurative language. We're so convinced that the best description of the world involves the latitude and longitude of a roundish ball of matter that we can't see that the contours of Biblical geography might be different from ours but still fruitful and accurate.

Now, how do I explain the Babylonian epics? Easily. If the Bible's account, then it would have been passed down orally. Men who hated God who obviously corrupt His stories to fit their own inventions of polytheism and pagan idolatry. Thus, the flood is corrupted to fit Babylonian mythology, as well as the creation account.

You can't argue that Genesis is God's Word in one breath and then say it's 2/3 paganism in the next.
How would you even know which parts are authentic and which aren't?
Or if any of it is?

Furthermore, you will note that the Babylonian versions have significant differences. Because they are the result of pagans corrupting God's true acts to fit their invented Gods, there are very significant differences in the theology in such stories. They are polytheistic and the gods are not seen as omnipotent and supreme, but rather much more creaturely, so unless you assume the Bible is not the word of God, his contention has no weight.

You just seemed to have assumed something a lot more confusing to me. Are you a Muslim? Because any other explanation as to what Genesis says is going to totally confound me.
Islam is the one and only source I've ever seen make the claim that the Bible was handed down by God but extremely corrupted.

[joey2011]

I know for a fact that God(The father) Jesus(the son)
and the holy spirit do exist because i have asthma and
i got prayed for so many times and knew that it "lessened"

I mean you can have your own opinion but i am convinced
I am healed to a point and maybe more.