Is there proof God exists?

How do you know how this thing plays out in my life? I'm not Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. You don't watch my day to day living. You have no idea how it plays out in my life.
It seems you have a lot of preconceived notions about a lot of things. Maybe you should open YOUR mind- just a little bit.


I have never stopped asking questions. I can never remember being asked by anyone to stop asking questions. In fact, not to brag, but at the last public highschool I taught at which was ranked 52 of public highschools in the US and had 1600 students and an incredibly accomplished and diverse faculty - I was given the distinction of having been voted by students and faculty an example of a 'lifelong learner'.
No big deal to you maybe, but I was pretty proud of that - especially that I had seemed to convey the NEED for that to the students.
It's in my personnel file - you can check


Wrong, in my case. I am fully able to have faith and understand and believe in evolution. And I have never been asked to forget anything I've learned anywhere by anyone

Do you even go to gatherings of any sort where people of any faith discuss these things? Or are you basing your impressions on what you read in the newspaper about rabid, creationist, right wing christianity?
Talk about not questioning...
You're simply wrong (in my case) and in many others I would venture to guess. I won't make blanket generalizations as you seem wont to do.


Really? Where has this happened to you? Specifically what faith and in what church?
Or do you just KNOW that it would happen in every faith and in any faith-based gathering? And also that it happens to EVERYONE....
So who's the one who's not questioning?


Most of the relevant science-based information that's been discovered about the origins and history of the earth in the past century. I have also asked questions and had them answered by people who have PhD's in geology and biology and physics (whom I happened to interact with on a daily basis in my job) and listened to their answers.
And guess what - I BELIEVE what they told me. I READ what they gave me to read and I even UNDERSTAND it.
And I don't find that it contradicts even one single bit of my FAITH at all. These facts and my faith live happily side by side within me.
You don't even know what my faith IS...and you're telling me I can't have it and believe the facts.

How arrogant!



I'd venture to say that I've studied and observed nature at least as much as you have - probably more because I grew up in it and still experience it (by choice) on a daily basis (another one of my NEEDS that you would probably deny is a NEED) and I've lived twice as long as you have.
Get a clue Diest.


Those are actually good questions.
But those were your descriptor- long lasting and meaningful- not mine.
I was just quoting you.
I think that's a topic for another thread though.


Of course it is, and extremely interesting. I sat in an Earth Science course a few years ago and learned a lot - but in my mind- and I think it's commonly agreed, we've collected data that has answered many, many questions. But the outstanding and unanswered, and most interesting question (to me, maybe not to you) is still - how the whole thing was set in motion. The origin.


I don't think we can't. I just know that right now we don't.

Not mine.

No, I'm amazed at the advances that have been made in science and technology.

No.


I know many people of faith who don't do that and never would.
Again, I think you have a false and unilateral view. Or maybe it has to do with you living in the south or Bible belt. Who the heck knows.
I have never found this is be a necessity in any of the places I have lived.


Wow Diest, you seem to know more about me than I know about myself.



Yes, certainly. As I said in the last post, each quest for faith has an objective and directive as individual as each person on that quest.
I don't believe homosexuality is a sin. I also don't believe it's my role to focus on what others do that may or may not constitute a sin.
I monitor my own behavior and actually, 'sin' is a word I don't use or see very often.
Not really a concept I embrace.
Maybe you should reexamine what you know about ALL FAITHS and the practices of ALL SEEKERS OF FAITH...


Why not? Do you know me that well? Interesting because you've never met me. Or do you think that all people who have any faith at all in anything have a particular comfort zone and want to stay there?
And you know this how?
My question is why you find it necessary to communicate in such a derisive and derogatory tone?
My faith would not allow me to treat or talk to another person that way.


Theoretical question but interesting. I'd have to think more about that. Maybe a good idea for another thread (generalized though to embrace more and different conceptual entities- explaining this whole faith thing to people who haven't experienced and don't understand what faith is or means to someone gets BORING....(kidding - but it does feel sort of futile)

Not yet.


Yes. My mother and father are why I have faith, in anything, especially myself. I can't even express to you how gifted I feel to have been born to these two specific people.
They have given me everything and just continue to give.
I will lose them sooner rather than later now, I know that and it's a wrenching thought to me. It makes me cry, right now, just thinking about it.
But I wouldn't be able to denounce my faith to keep them with me. It would be like saying to someone, 'I don't have freckles.' I DO...I just do.

It has something to do with hope for me.
And I can never give up hope - it's ridiculous I know.
My son says to me - 'You are just ******* TENACIOUS..' (when he gets frustrated with me).
And I am - I know that.
But one thing I'm not is ignorant.


No, I agree it can have the same affect as a mood enhancing drug. But it's natural (to me).
No harmful side effects (for me).
But my dose is moderate and informed by information, observation and rational and intelligent care.


And a NEED is subjective. Determined by what one does or doesn't have. My Brain produces enough serotonin and dopamine, so I don't NEED antidepressants.
But I talked to my friend last night, and her brain doesn't work as mine does.
To save her life - not just to get through it - to save it - she NEEDS something different than I do.


Yeah, well, again- you say you lived in Missouri and Virginia. I taught for twenty years in public highschools in six different states on the east coast - one in the south, although it was in Chapel Hill, which is a fairly cosmopolitan town as far as the south goes- and I never heard a word of Creationism even breathed in a science classroom.
I think it's much less widespread than people perceive.
And as the whole tenor of the political and educational culture begin their shift, I'm sure we'll be less and less inundated by inflamed articles about it in the press.



Not from reading/speaking with them on the internet.
I think self-reporting (even if it's dishonest- that tells you something in itself) is essential in terms of gaining a deep and thorough understanding of a person.

I am very pleased that you are neither Pate Robertson nor Jerry Falwell. If this was just about two men (or a handful of say a thousand or two) I probably wouldn't care too much about it. It is not. As you have noted, I've lived in Missouri and in Virginia. I can't really speak for Virginia as much, but as for Missouri, I could write volumes for the clash of faith and science.

How this plays out for you in real life is certainly different I'm sure, but as you have explained, you have taught in mostly eastern schools, although you mentioned NC, which I'm unfamiliar with in terms of this kind of topic. You'll have to trust that my observations are not contrived. In 2006 or instance, the Missouri coalition for life was trying to stop a stem cell research bill from passing (certainly their right to speak their minds). However, they were trying to twist the arm of the state by introducing measures to stop all funding to the state campuses that would do this kind of research. Assholes.

Additionally, while you have not known a life without faith, I have known a life a faith. Several in fact. It was a very labored effort to try out and find a fit. I found it wasn't the specific differences that turned me off to individual faiths, it was the common thread they shared. I am not speaking theoretically about faith, preconceived notion, it is not. I've been there, done that. An open mind is not a problem for me. I speak from experience that faith had asked me to stop asking. Not just once either.

I get it though. You haven't stopped questioning. That's good, but this isn't about you. It isn't about me. You aren't under attack. You can't say with a straight face that science is not being undermined by religion in our world. Just because you don't do it, does not mean that others don't. I see no need for you to represent these people, but you do nobody ay favors by denying that this is certainly a practice of faith (even if not yours).

As for gatherings of faith, I was in my college years a member of a round table on religion. It was composed of people of all different faiths. This was at a a science and engineering school too. I saw firsthand how this conflicted with many individuals. Imagine for a moment a mathematician who understands string theory, but wants it to be wrong because of what it might mean to his faith. I knew him. Imagine a student's feelings towards the 2nd law of thermodynamics and what they've been told about it in regards to evolution, then having them learn what the law actually is. I knew him too.

I can understand that many people including you have lived longer aidan. I am unsure as how this becomes ultimately relevant. There are people older than you that share my view, many of whom have helped shape my outlook. If I am to yield to your experience, are you to yield to theirs? Perhaps a discussion on merits is better. As I said, how can a faith no matter how long lasting or meaningful have value if it is factually wrong? You agree with evolution, how do you reconcile your faith's factual inaccuracy? At what point could you no longer reconcile it? Is there a particular story, or a amount of stories that would have to be found factually wrong for you to stop reconciling it?

You gave the example of your brain that produces enough serotonin and dopamine, so you don't need antidepressants. Your friend's brain however doesn't. Good example, for my point. See the meds your friend takes will actually stimulate the brian and force the production of serotonin and/or dopamine. The NEED was the serotonin and dopamine, not the meds. The meds only represent the means. I understand your use of the word "need" here, but in terms of human needs, it's inaccurate. A person who is in a wheelchair needs a ramp, but their NEED like those who can walk is mobility. The ramp only represents the means to achieve their need, like your friend's meds.

Needs are not subjective. Our wants and what we believe to be the best means to meet our needs and wants are subjective though. You think faith is a need for you. I do not believe this can be the case for anyone. Like the meds (unintended drug reference... we keep doing that...), this is your means, but it is not a need.

Aidan, I don't think you're ignorant. Your son's phrasing of ******* tenacious perhaps most appropriate. I don't think you should be taking such offense to what I'm writing here, nor should you be going to such lengths to defend things.

T
K
O

BTW, congrats on your teaching award. That's pretty cool.

Thanks - I thought it was cool too - and it was totally unexpected. That's what made it such a nice surprise.

I understand what you're saying. I respect your views- very cogently and clearly stated. You're a good writer.

I too wish that certain people who represent religion in general and Christians, specifically (in this issue of faith vs. science in the schools) were reasonable and rational and perfect.
Unfortunately - they're also human. So that will never be the case, I'm afraid.

And just like everyone else, Christians view situations and issues through their own particular prism. They actively seek facts and interpret stimulus so as to support their particular beliefs or tendencies when deciding theoretical truths.
It's the rare person who can approach most issues with a truly open mind.

I don't think I'm right and anyone else is wrong. I just know what I am.
And I can't change what I am because others who say they are the same as me and have the same beliefs (but really don't) make me be ashamed to be known as what I know I am.
I'd call that cowardly.

I only brought up my time on earth because it references how long I've had to think and observe and ruminate over these things. It doesn't make me superior to anyone or less than anyone -it just references how long I've had to think and observe and learn. That's all.
Maybe Ive observed and learned different things from different people and experiences than other people, older or younger.
But I trust the people I've learned from and observations and experiences I've had and am happy with the conclusions I've come to.

They work for me-that's all I can tell you.
And it does make me feel defensive when something that means something to me is ridiculed. Not merely questioned- ridiculed. And faith is often ridiculed on this forum.
And I think that's unfortunate. I think people should be able to differentiate between intolerant and hate stirring Christians such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson or creationists pushing their agenda on school boards and people who simply and quietly practice what they were taught that has brought meaning and direction to their lives.
I don't ask people why they DON'T believe. It make no difference to me whatsoever. Why does it matter to anyone at all that I do?

You don't have to answer that- it was just a hypothetical question. I understand where your ire with Christians and Christianity lies. You can believe me when I say that mine does too.
But it doesn't change the fact that I believe and value what I was taught to believe and value.

This is a perfect place to end this conversation.

Thank you for your input.
K
O

Proof That There Is A God
Or
Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden


A, Properties of a Whole Thing

If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.

Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.


B. CLIMAX

I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.

If God didn't exist Man would invent Him

If God didnt exist man would have to

If there is no God, who created the universe. Does the creation of the earth happened by chance? Is it the same chance that caused the sky to be created? And again the same chance creates our father Adam? And then thought about him and how could he start family alone and created Eve for him? If something happened by chance, do you think it would be perfect like the universe? you? your eyes? your partner?
Please answer me, who does all that?

If there was proof, faith would not be necessary. Faith is the ONLY thing a theist has but fore me faith is not good enough. I see faith as needy/wishful standpoint. It is not useful for anything other than using it to deflect reality.

Proof of God. There is no scientific proof of God. However there is evidence of God. Scientists will never proof or disprove God's existence. Atheists do not believe in God beecause they don't want to. Even if there was physical proof of God, they would not be happy. Why? Because they don't want there to be a God. So, as a Christian, there is absolutely no reason in arguing with them because they won't believe. We have faith that God exists, they have faith God doesn't. There really is no other way around it. Just consider this;
I love my child. There is no physical proof of this love. But my actions as a parent s towards my child is evidence of my love and my child knows I love him. It's the same concept as faith. No proof of God, only evidence. Also, on the subject of loving children I'd like to post an enlightening quote, "...But just as no child can be awakened to love without being loved, so too no human heart can come to an understanding of God without the free gift of his grace-- in the image of his Son."
-Hans Urs von Balthasar, Love Alone is Credible
Trust that God can work inside the hearts of men. Ultimately we must trust that God will but light to all truth. Meanwhile we must seek to not hurt, offend, or invalidate anyone, but instead give hope and reassurance to a hurting world, help serve, love, and heal humanity. It's not about winning or proving your point, it's about the love of God and his desire to restore ALL humanity.

And what would that be?

The fact that evolution is so clearly unworkable... I mean, God is about all that leaves.

And once again, where is the proof?

...yo krumple...watch out for the use of the word "needy"...you are entering the forth dimension with that one...

Is there proof God exists?

Yes, but maybe the queston should be do you want to believe it?
When Moses led the people out of Egypt he performed all kinds of signs and wonders: raining down frogs and locust, turning water to blood, parting and passing through the sea, etc. The lord led them as a pillar of fire at night and a pillar of smoke during the day. So how much more did they need to believe that God existed? With all of this evidence what did the people do? They built a golden calf and said this golden calf was their God. Sheesh.

(If you have never been amazed by the very fact that you exist, you are squandering the grestest fact of all. H. Haskins)

Luk 11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he (Jesus) began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
Luk 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

I read a great testimony which might shed some light on the above. The person said that he figured this is God's world. God wants it to be a pretty good world and he sent his son to show us how it could be like that. Some men did not like the picture Christ painted: it was too good for them: they couldn't take it so they crucified him. But God loved us enough that he sent Christ back to us.

They say that we receive Christ by faith and as we walk in faith he is revealed in our hearts and in our lives.

I believe we can find a proof for god and it can come from science no less. A part of the matter is that the mind and intelligence are not a part of the physical realm but are the non-physical realm. We do have sufficient evidence that a non-physical realm exists even though scientists are scoffing at the idea.

Elementary logic suggests that even if a "non-physical realm" exists, it does not follow that it contains an entity you wish to call "God". You seem to be arguing for straight Cartesian dualism in which "God" was evoked by Descartes in order to connect "mind" to "matter". Most neuroscientists have moved on from such simplistic dualism. (See for example articles on "embodied cognition")

I do not say that a non-physical realm contains god. If God exists it is the all, which means it takes in all that exists both physical and non-physical. There is nothing outside of God. The non-physical is a singularity; spaceless and timeless. All of space and time, past, present and future are all contain within it. There is no dualism. Neuroscience is trying to explain everything as being contained within the brain and they really have no grounds, at least not at present for even making the assumption.

Oh Really ?......You really need to do a lot more reading!

Its a great shame that some theists haven't got a clue about what modern science is about, yet have the nerve to evoke "scientific proof" for their mythical entity.

I should add that the phrase "mythical entity" is shorthand for the rationalist position applicable to all gods. If you read back over the years of this thread you can follow my argument that existence applies to concepts not "entities". No thing has independent existence because all things are conceptualized. It begs the question to evoke "God" as an ultimate "conceptualizer".