Proof that God exists

[mysticlady59]

  god is not to be argued he is real and it is all on faith and hope .without that you arent alive anyway so we all have a right to our own opinion so why not just enjoy what you believe in but in the end i think no i know god is real he has healed me many times 

[queenofnines]

I have yet to see any proof that a God exists so either you believe or don't.

Wow, I'm surprised to see you say that.  In many other places you claimed that you do have proof.

[Stealth3si]

You're referring to the biblical account but I'm actually talking about the event of the so-called "flood" that you raised, right here. So I fail to see how this equates to stating the Bible has been corrupted.

Because if the Biblical account is wrong, then the Bible is impure. It's God's direct dictation or it isn't.

Here you're assuming the Bible is wrong when it says it's the Word of God. However, this isn't a proper answer to your question of taking a neutral stance.

Previously, I said I didn't believe such a thing exists, so I'm interested in hearing what you mean by "neutral stance"; how does one take a neutral stance when reading these old epics? And this isn't annoying presuppositionalist bait; I'm just asking what criteria you're using so I can answer your question. I think it is an interesting thought experiment; I'm just not sure where to begin.

You're referring to the biblical account but I'm actually talking about the event of the so-called "flood" that you raised, right here. So I fail to see how this equates to stating the Bible has been corrupted.

If the flood happened one way, and the Bible presents it as happening another way, then the Bible is wrong, and not directly from God.
And the story being influenced even just in the way it's told by pagan religions is the definition of corruption.

Red herring. My claim was about the Babylonion epics. See below.

Where did I espouse the view of an old Earth?

I suppose you didn't. But if you don't think the flood story is accurately relayed, I wonder how you have confidence in genealogies, that predate writing. I could remember a story about the flood a lot more faithfully than a list of dozens of ancestors, I think.

I think there's just confusion over what I'm referring to. Those comments are about Babylonian myths, not the Bible. My claim was that, if the flood actually happened, then it would have been passed down by everyone, not just the righteous. And the wicked would have spun the story in a way that justified themselves, in a way that fit their religious claims. But since I am already a believer of the Bible being the true record, that records it accurately in light of Yahweh, the true God, it shouldn't be unreasonable for me to suspect that the Babylonian, and other pagan versions, being that they deny Yahweh, have to change the story to fit their system.

In light of this, my original post still might not make sense to a Deist like you, however, because I believe the Bible is a true account of history, it would make sense to me that other pagan myths, though they may be based on true events, say false things about them, i.e., they take the flood story, real history, and then tell it with different gods, bringing on the flood for different reasons, and with different results. Hence, my original question, "How do I explain the Babylonian epics?"

Now, I'm quite aware I'm not taking a neutral position here, as I said earlier that I fail to see how can such a thing exist. That being said, this would sort of hark to your original question, so if you're attempting to take a 'neutral stance,' then what is your criteria you're using so I can try to explain this (if I can.)

I'm non-denominational. What about you?

I was raised as a fundamentalist/independent Baptist. Now I'm just a deist.

You might as well be an atheist.

I fail to see why a Deist must cling on to the idea of a supernatural.

I went in circles for years pointing out that 3/4 of Christology is not even based on anything found in the Bible, but I have to admit that the framework is in place for good reason. The Bible is pretty much a decentralized book that doesn't seem to look fondly on large hierarchical churches.
Without that structure you'd inevitably devolve into a Unitarian "personal faith" type thing. It's impossible to maintain unity like that.

This is true only if you deny the inherent diversity of Scripture to where stagnation occurs, which can be caused when Gnosticism dominates much of fundamentalism.

[Alphasee]

The title of this thread made me LOL.

There is no proof for an intangible thing. But there's also no proof contradicting the existence of said intangible thing.

The only proof is faith. The rest of you are wrong.

[Stealth3si]

The title of this thread made me LOL.

There is no proof for an intangible thing. But there's also no proof contradicting the existence of said intangible thing.

This sort of reminds me of what Cuba Gooding Jr's character said in "Wrong Turn At Tahoe."  

[walksalone11]

Stealth3si.....Identity, Christian?

[Stealth3si]

Stealth3si.....Identity, Christian?

Yes. You?

  in Christ.

[walksalone11]

Stealth3si.....Identity, Christian?

Yes. You?

  in Christ.

No

[Stealth3si]

Stealth3si.....Identity, Christian?

Yes. You?

  in Christ.

No

Okay.

Edit: I just saw your other post about "Christian Identity. " It's interesting because I seen them in an episode of "Gangland" where their mission was to "purify" America into a land of whites. So if your question was framed in this context, then my answer should be 'no' since it wasn't how I understood your question to be. Further, if my original answer prompted you to post that or if I have led you to believe I identify myself as part of the "Christian Identity" movement, then I am sorry about the confusion.  

[Alphasee]

I believe in God. And Jesus, because of my FAITH. There is no physical proof for a metaphysical idea. Sorry gaiz.

[GoGoKokiGo]

I believe in God. And Jesus, because of my FAITH. There is no physical proof for a metaphysical idea. Sorry gaiz.

I like that you admit that.

[jaseyxrae]

there is many talks about god in here..and of course im a firm belive of the father , son and the holy ghost ....even thow i know i dont have to proof this to anybody because god can only do it for you himself ....im just doing this because people keep sayingthere is no sintific eveindece that god exists .....and they always post proof of evolution soo... let me start with my evidence ..this is long.. so if you feel like sitting here.. reading this go head...i strongly reccomend you do ..ive been telling people that i did resererch in school on this but i never got around to hit so heres my  evidence ..or my research whatever ..you want to call it ..and so im going to shareit with you




Proof


 main point : Nothing can only create Nothing before the universe begain somthing must have always existed

  1.  the first law of thermodynamics:Energy is eternal it confirms that energy cannot be  created or destroyed  no begging or uncreated or no end  thats what eternal means  ... you cant  claim that this energy existed  ni a known universe because  scientist have proven that the universe didint always exist  and this energy source that was presence before the universe begain  had to have power beyond anything  we can begain to imagine considering it had to tranfer its energy to billions of stars and galaxies  , a seperate  eternal  energy source that exists outside of the universe had to have supplied or tranfered its energy onto the universe because again the universe did not exist  proven again by scentist themselfs  it is not unreasonable to assume this anormus energy was god  we resonably have two options  to determine this energy , it could dumb , uncontious and vague energy source
witch is illagitamite seeing as thow  we can observe  complexity order and desghn through out the universe  the most logical ansewer is thatgod created the universe  if you dont agree...then your just being unresonable about the possiblity of god



 2. here is an actuell scientist  who was an athiest that sought out to see if god exists and he found that he does



ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God )

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.


 AMIT GOSWAMI
3. Before you read any further, stop and close your eyes for a moment. Now consider the following question: for the moment your eyes were closed, did the world still exist even though you weren't conscious of it? How do you know? If this sounds like the kind of unanswerable brain teaser your Philosophy 101 professor used to employ to stretch your philosophical imagination, you might be surprised to discover that there are actually physicists at reputable universities who believe they have answered this question—and their answer, believe it or not, is no.

Now consider something even more intriguing. Imagine for a moment the entire history of the universe. According to all the data scientists have been able to gather, it exploded into existence some fifteen billion years ago, setting the stage for a cosmic dance of energy and light that continues to this day. Now imagine the history of planet Earth. An amorphous cloud of dust emerging out of that primordial fireball, it slowly coalesced into a solid orb, found its way into gravitational orbit around the sun, and through a complex interaction of light and gases over billions of years, generated an atmosphere and a biosphere capable of not only giving birth to, but sustaining and proliferating, life.

Now imagine that none of the above ever happened. Consider instead the possibility that the entire story only existed as an abstract potential—a cosmic dream among countless other cosmic dreams—until, in that dream, life somehow evolved to the point that a conscious, sentient being came into existence. At that moment, solely because of the conscious observation of that individual, the entire universe, including all of the history leading up to that point, suddenly came into being. Until that moment, nothing had actually ever happened. In that moment, fifteen billion years happened. If this sounds like nothing more than a complicated backdrop for a science fiction story or a secular version of one of the world's great creation myths, hold on to your hat. According to physicist Amit Goswami, the above description is a scientifically viable explanation of how the universe came into being.

(will continue on next page ..cuz it excedds the maximumm linth)

I was interested in reading this to see what your opinion was, but after the first few lines, i just felt stupider. Yeah, stupider, see? Why don't you try correcting your spelling, grammar, and everything else that's wrong with this.

[ivyalexandra]

i was brought up to be a Buddhist in South Korea

i can respect your beliefs

but i don't really see the need for God or god

or sitting in a weird position for 6 to 10 hours (ugh)

you try it

but at least i can stay squatted on the floor longer than you can^^

IvyA

[Alphasee]

I believe in God. And Jesus, because of my FAITH. There is no physical proof for a metaphysical idea. Sorry gaiz.

I like that you admit that.

I will never, EVER deny the existence of God. It's just really, really sad how out-of-hand people have gotten with the whole idea. They create all these proofs for something that doesn't need proving. If someone believes in something that is beyond any earthly thing in the first place, it's something that is not going to have physical proofs anyways. I don't know why people keep trying to do it. Maybe they're just confused themselves and they have nothing better to do.

Believe whatever you want. Even a true Christian is "supposed" to believe in the saying live and let live. If someone doesn't believe what you do, let them be! It is not your job to (quite literally) crucify them for not believing the same thing. Who knows. According to their religion (or ideas) it might be the same.

[cece12]

He woke me up this glorious warm almost Spring morning! Two beautiful girls a wonderful husband, kept me mostly sane through trauma and drama...that's just part of my proof.