Is there proof God exists?

So, belief in Santa and the tooth fairy means they exist. Yup!

@cicerone imposter,

It may be harsh on some people to say that santa doesn't exist. Wink

@Procrustes,

Unfortunately, numbers do not prove or disprove anything exists in this world. Billions of people believe in god(s) and Santa, so if numbers were an indication of existence or reality, there wouldn't be any disagreements.

They just don't stand up to scrutiny, and one must ignore logic and common sense to do so.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

scrutiny?
Seems people look for what they want to find. There are those who look to find god and then there are those who look to discredit any existence of god. Seems people pretty much find what they are looking for.
logic and common sense?
Seems to me people who say my beliefs lack logic and common sense say so because my beliefs disagree with theirs so of course they must be nonsense.

1 Reply

@auroreII,

Look at the basics; the bible has errors, contradictions, omissions, and it just added another god in a whole slew of gods in other cultures. There were gods before the bible god. Many gods were created in Northern India about 1500 BC. There was a virgin birth before the bible virgin birth. All the miracles mentioned in the bible is not recorded anyplace else. The bible claims the earth is 7000 years old. Science claims the earth is 4.5 billions years old. Can you refute science?

How many of the bible's contradictions would you like for me to list? 1? How about 1000?

If your bible god is such a loving god, how come he killed all living things by the world flood? He's a merciless and vengeful god, because he's fiction.

Show me by logic or common sense how you can continue to depend on a fictional book with so many errors, omissions, and contradictions?

Even in Genesis, there was day and night before god created the sun. How did that happen?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

"Can you refute science?"
Sure I can. Can't you? Science has never been wrong? Do you just take everything at face value? Doesn't science deal largely with that which we can see? Could there be nothing more?
What does it mean to exist? Science itself changes with what we know. Recently Einstein's theory of relativity has been challenged because of experiments that show it fails to apply.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/would-einsteins-theory-of-relativity-be-proved-false/187145-11.html

I didn't know the bible claimed that the earth was 7000 years old. Verse?
When you say "contradictions" are you saying the bible contradicts science? That wouldn't surprise me. Actually I had a problem with what seemed to be contradictions in the bible. Still do sometimes.
God for me is a loving God. It would appear you don't necessarily believe that. God is the law giver. Do we hate God because he gave the law? Where would we be if we didn't have any law- Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder...Would you rather not have the law? Which ones should we get rid of? If not God's law then whose? The punishment for breaking the law (sin) is death. No doubt that seems harsh. I believe the people in Noah 's time who drowned were a pretty sinful lot according to the bible. We live in a fairly law abiding society, even so human nature is such that none of us can keep the law. It would be pretty harsh for all of us if we had to keep the law, because due to our human nature we can't. Supposedly the old testament shows us God's law and it show us that we in ourselves cannot keep the law. The new testament shows us God's mercy. In Jesus we see God's love and forgiveness of sin. In the cross we see the length that Jesus is willing to go to have us turn from and seek forgiveness for our sinful ways. He gave it all. The new testament says it comes down to this: Mat 22:37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Love. What's the problem with that?

1 Reply

@auroreII,

Who ever claimed science is never wrong? You? LOL However, the difference between science and the bible is that science has a way to correct erroneous information as new information is gained, while the bible remains static in all their errors and contradictions. There is no "fiction" in science; it moves with the times as new information is studied and learned. Have you still figured out why the world flood is fiction? No, you wouldn't, because the bible's fiction is static, and unable to correct fiction.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I know a whole lot of christians who would tell you that the bible is not static. That's why it is called the living bible. No, there is nothing static about the bible. God's law-written in stone, yes, it is, but the bible teaches us that the law is to be tempered with love. St. Paul tells us that we are not under the law, but under grace. Grace doesn't negate the law, it doesn't give us license to sin. Grace is love and care that we don't deserve. It is mercy and compassion for love's sake and love's alone.

My favorite passage of the bible is when the religious leaders bring an adulteress to Jesus and ask him what they should do with her. Now they knew the law said to stone her and I'll just bet they were hoping that Jesus would tell them that is what they must do. After all Jesus had been going around preaching about God's love and forgiveness so he'd looked like a hypocrit to those he'd been preaching this message to if he were to agree that she were to be stoned. Then again perhaps they were hoping that he would say to forgive her and let her go, but hadn't Jesus established himself as a man of God and surely a man of God would not say to do something contradictary to God's law? Either way they thought for sure they had found their way to discredit Jesus.

The bible says that Jesus was saddened by the hardness of their hearts. (How many times does the bible say that God is saddened by the hardness of mans' heart. Quite a bit.) Jesus told the religious leaders that the person who had not sinned should throw the first stone. Whoa, they didn't see that coming. The bible says that the holy spirit convicted their hearts. They knew they weren't perfect. They knew they were sinners. They knew that if any of them were to throw a stone they would by their actions be saying that all sinners were deserving of death. They would be agreeing with the law. In essence they would not only be judging the adulteress, they'd also be judging themselves.(The bible says judge not lest ye also be judged and that judgement is best left up to God.) Her accusers all got out of there fast. That left only one man, a man who was perfect in all his ways, a man who could throw that stone and be justified under the law because he was perfect. What did Jesus do. He forgave her. He showed her God's grace.

Perhaps the bible seems static due to a lack of understanding. I know the more I search for meaning the better I understand it. No the bible is not static. It makes us think. It pricks our consciences. It shows us Jesus, the man God means for us to be like and can be like by living and growing in him.

For what it's worth, I have seen scientific people present evidence to support a big flood.

Is science an end in itself or is it a means to greater understanding of universal truths and the meaning of life? Maybe we are looking for the same thing just through different means. I agree with science when it appears to be true, but at the same time it can be rather limiting. I have seen things/ coincidences that seem beyond probability and science.

2 Replies

@auroreII,

You have "seen" scientific people prove there was a world flood? Exactly who were they? I'd like their names, and where they are located? What kind of scientists are they?

What proof did they provide?

From the bible:

Quote:

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

From Wiki:

Quote:

Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology,[2] and the scientific community considers the subject to be pseudoscience.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I did not say I've seen proof that there was a flood. I said I saw scientists offer evidence that there was a great flood. It wasn't of great interest to me at the time, but I believe it was on a television show on the history channel- one of those shows about the formation of the world and what changes in the structure of the layers of the earth might represent. I do know there is a documentary on the ark that I've seen on TV a couple of times. Not proof either, but noteworthy for those interested in the possiblity of locating it.

1 Reply

@auroreII,

What you said,

Quote:

For what it's worth, I have seen scientific people present evidence to support a big flood.

What are the evidence? Don't you remember what you believe are irrefutable evidence of a big flood? Forgetfulness is not proof of anything.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Now you're being picky. Just because you can't prove something to be true doesn't mean that it is false. A lawyer has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant killed his wife in order for the defendant to be found guilty. Just because the lawyer can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did kill her does not mean that he didn't kill her. It simply means that you can't prove it. So do you believe O.J. was guilty?

1 Reply

@auroreII,

Where and when did you learn logic? I never said anything about

Quote:

Just because you can't prove something to be true doesn't mean that it is false.

Those are your words, and you won't be able to find any of my posts that have claimed such a ridiculous concept.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I'm sorry I must be misunderstanding you. I thought I said "evidence" and you said "irrefutable evidence". I don't think I ever mentioned anything about irrefutable evidence/proof. Irrefutable would seem to indicate that it could not be false. As for the evidence I don't remember anything beyond what I told you.

1 Reply

@auroreII,

It was asked, because you seem to have difficulty with facts.

0 Replies

@auroreII,

auroreII wrote:

I know a whole lot of christians who would tell you that the bible is not static. That's why it is called the living bible. No, there is nothing static about the bible. God's law-written in stone, yes, it is, but the bible teaches us that the law is to be tempered with love. St. Paul tells us that we are not under the law, but under grace. Grace doesn't negate the law, it doesn't give us license to sin. Grace is love and care that we don't deserve. It is mercy and compassion for love's sake and love's alone.

I object to this constant mantra that christians try to repeat as much as possible so that it will be acceptable. You can NOT on one hand say that a god is loving and at the same time suggest that those who do not accept jesus will be cast off to some other place or tortured or forgotten. That is a contradiction in terms. There is grace yet you say there is mercy? That is also a contradition. You can't have it both ways, despite the many countless attempts by chrisitians to have their cake and eat it. It does not make any sense and is in fact nonsense.

auroreII wrote:

My favorite passage of the bible is when the religious leaders bring an adulteress to Jesus and ask him what they should do with her. Now they knew the law said to stone her and I'll just bet they were hoping that Jesus would tell them that is what they must do. After all Jesus had been going around preaching about God's love and forgiveness so he'd looked like a hypocrit to those he'd been preaching this message to if he were to agree that she were to be stoned. Then again perhaps they were hoping that he would say to forgive her and let her go, but hadn't Jesus established himself as a man of God and surely a man of God would not say to do something contradictary to God's law? Either way they thought for sure they had found their way to discredit Jesus.

Go back through the many different versions of the bible, this passage is by many biblical scholars to be a later addition. That might not mean anything to you but there is evidence that these accounts don't actually exist in earlier texts that are attributed to the bible.

auroreII wrote:

Perhaps the bible seems static due to a lack of understanding. I know the more I search for meaning the better I understand it. No the bible is not static. It makes us think. It pricks our consciences. It shows us Jesus, the man God means for us to be like and can be like by living and growing in him.

Yeah christians cherry pick the bible to make the claims that support their current idealistic perspective of what ever they want their current god to be. Then they ignore all the other stuff that contradicts that aspect. This is what you mean by not static.

auroreII wrote:

For what it's worth, I have seen scientific people present evidence to support a big flood.

There is no actual scientific evidence of a global flood. This so called evidence that you are trying to claim exists is made up by apologetics.

auroreII wrote:

Is science an end in itself or is it a means to greater understanding of universal truths and the meaning of life? Maybe we are looking for the same thing just through different means. I agree with science when it appears to be true, but at the same time it can be rather limiting. I have seen things/ coincidences that seem beyond probability and science.

The advances that we have made as a modern society have all come from science alone. Religion and christianity has attributed NOTHING to the advancement of our society. If anything religion including christianity is holding us back from group up mentally. People still believe in this superstitious bronze age nonsense as if it is valid. It's not but people refuse to accept the reality of it because they are afraid of dying.

0 Replies

Is there proof God exists? Rolling Eyes

You are the proof God exist. Laughing

0 Replies

Is there proof God exists?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know