Proof of God

[apothanein kerdos]

Can we, as Christians, prove God?

I would support the idea that we can. For one, all of the patriarchs and even new Testament people saw, interacted, and heard God. This occured either through the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or God the Father. Thus, if faith rests upon our lack of proof in God, these men had no faith. If, however, faith is putting our trust in what we know to be true, these men had absolute faith.

Thus, how do we as Christians prove God?

We look to the human experience. Let us look at a universal moral; murder. It is generally accepted that to kill someone with malice is wrong. If we remove God from the equation, or at least some sort of source, then there is no reason to prohibit murder or feel objectionable to it. If I am nothing more than a highly evolved animal than killing for my own benefit, or for the benefit of my family, there is logically nothing wrong with murder. God has been removed from the equation.

This applies across the board. When we take God out of the equation, when we remove the Supernatural, there is no reasoning behind the human experience. There is no reason to live or exist. "We do this to exist." Why do we want to exist in the first place? What is our reasoning behind such a thing? There is none.

When we put God into the equation, we see the proof....we see why we are human.

[Guest man]

What about those who don't believe in God? How can you take God out of the equation if they don't believe He exists? He's not there to begin with, so how can you take Him out?

You can't prove the existance of God. Just like you can't prove that He doesn't exist.

[apothanein kerdos]

What about those who don't believe in God? How can you take God out of the equation if they don't believe He exists? He's not there to begin with, so how can you take Him out?

You can't prove the existance of God. Just like you can't prove that He doesn't exist.

*sigh*

That's the point I'm making. Athiests don't believe in God, therefore they cannot adequately explain why they love or even enjoy life.

As for you cannot prove God....that's a HORRIBLE cliche that is anti-biblical. For one, we are told in the Bible that we are proof. Likewise...what about all the people that met God, talked to Him, heard Him, and saw Him?

If you don't believe He can be proven, then you have no business believing in Him. You're merely hoping He's there and can't truly live like He is.

[Fiosh]

AK,

While I appreciate the import of your post, it won't fly with an atheist. An atheist will respond that societal rules are established for the survival of the species and the individual, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything supernatural.

I would venture to guess their definition of love is different from yours and lacks the "sacrificial" component.

Not arguing with what you've said. Just trying to see it from the other side. ( I prefer not to use the term "devil's advocate" )

I would love to have a solid response to the atheistic charge that "you cannot prove God exists".

Peace,

Fiosh

[apothanein kerdos]

AK,

While I appreciate the import of your post, it won't fly with an atheist. An atheist will respond that societal rules are established for the survival of the species and the individual, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything supernatural.

I would venture to guess their definition of love is different from yours and lacks the "sacrificial" component.

Not arguing with what you've said. Just trying to see it from the other side. ( I prefer not to use the term "devil's advocate" )

I would love to have a solid response to the atheistic charge that "you cannot prove God exists".

Peace,

Fiosh

I know they would disagree....if they agreed they would be a Christian

What I'm saying though is that they are having to take a leap of faith, not Christians. Even if they take the "societal rules" standpoint, it doesn't explain why humans were the only ones to develop such rules. Why is it that other smaller, weaker species were able to get along fine without sociatal rules, but man could not? Especially with things like murder and rape....two things that would actually benefit society have almost always been banned.

Inevitably, an athiest must make a leap of faith to explain the human experience.

Just because there is proof does not mean people will accept that proof. Cain, for example, had a verbal discourse with God, yet this did not change the way he acted. Just because people don't accept it as proof does not mean it isn't proof.

[mike2]

Can we, as Christians, prove God?

I would support the idea that we can. For one, all of the patriarchs and even new Testament people saw, interacted, and heard God. This occured either through the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or God the Father. Thus, if faith rests upon our lack of proof in God, these men had no faith. If, however, faith is putting our trust in what we know to be true, these men had absolute faith.

Thus, how do we as Christians prove God?

We look to the human experience. Let us look at a universal moral; murder. It is generally accepted that to kill someone with malice is wrong. If we remove God from the equation, or at least some sort of source, then there is no reason to prohibit murder or feel objectionable to it. If I am nothing more than a highly evolved animal than killing for my own benefit, or for the benefit of my family, there is logically nothing wrong with murder. God has been removed from the equation.

This applies across the board. When we take God out of the equation, when we remove the Supernatural, there is no reasoning behind the human experience. There is no reason to live or exist. "We do this to exist." Why do we want to exist in the first place? What is our reasoning behind such a thing? There is none.

When we put God into the equation, we see the proof....we see why we are human.

As a Christian I think there is validity to this approach.

We see the influence of God all around us everyday of our lives. Moraly humans would not survive without it(all else being the same)

This approach though recquires that we accept the positive influence as Gods influence.

How would this approach work with say, a Buddist

[Guest man]

I and any other person who believes in God needs no proof.

I'm not saying you can't prove it to me, what I'm saying is you can't prove it, period. There is nothing out there in the world that you can pick up and say "look, here's proof".

My faith in God doesn't prove His existance to an unbeliever. All it proves is that I believe in God.

People that don't believe do not read the bible, so bringing scripture into the discussion is pointless. It proves nothing.

[Guest man]

How does murder and rape benefit society?

[apothanein kerdos]

Can we, as Christians, prove God?

I would support the idea that we can. For one, all of the patriarchs and even new Testament people saw, interacted, and heard God. This occured either through the Holy Spirit, Jesus, or God the Father. Thus, if faith rests upon our lack of proof in God, these men had no faith. If, however, faith is putting our trust in what we know to be true, these men had absolute faith.

Thus, how do we as Christians prove God?

We look to the human experience. Let us look at a universal moral; murder. It is generally accepted that to kill someone with malice is wrong. If we remove God from the equation, or at least some sort of source, then there is no reason to prohibit murder or feel objectionable to it. If I am nothing more than a highly evolved animal than killing for my own benefit, or for the benefit of my family, there is logically nothing wrong with murder. God has been removed from the equation.

This applies across the board. When we take God out of the equation, when we remove the Supernatural, there is no reasoning behind the human experience. There is no reason to live or exist. "We do this to exist." Why do we want to exist in the first place? What is our reasoning behind such a thing? There is none.

When we put God into the equation, we see the proof....we see why we are human.

As a Christian I think there is validity to this approach.

We see the influence of God all around us everyday of our lives. Moraly humans would not survive without it(all else being the same)

This approach though recquires that we accept the positive influence as Gods influence.

How would this approach work with say, a Buddist

Absolutely. You can't argue for God unless you have God in you.

As for a Buddist...it's a littler different because their overall philosophy is quite different. Likewise, I don't know enough about Buddhism to develop an overall paradigm against it. What I do know is that pain is a process which we go through to be cleansed. If that is the case....why do they go to hospitals?

That is weak. My next move is to study eastern religions/philosophies...I'm wrapping up a western study (almost done with Zizek).

I and any other person who believes in God needs no proof.

I'm not saying you can't prove it to me, what I'm saying is you can't prove it, period. There is nothing out there in the world that you can pick up and say "look, here's proof".

My faith in God doesn't prove His existance to an unbeliever. All it proves is that I believe in God.

People that don't believe do not read the bible, so bringing scripture into the discussion is pointless. It proves nothing.

You didn't say anything in that entire construct that we'll call a paragraph. You brought up rhetoric but did not actually respond to what I have.

Again, what of those that interacted on a physical basis with God? Are you saying they no longer had faith because of the interaction? If God cannot be proven then He simply doesn't exist. I can say that elves exist but you can't prove it under your logic. Your faith is one that is baseless. It is a remnant of Keirkgaard. In fact, it wasn't until Keirkgaard that Christians began to say you can't prove God. Until then, everyone thought you could. Anselm wrote an entire thesis on the proof. In Scripture that is all Paul does when He confronts those that are lost....he tries to prove God exists. You have no scriptural or even logical backing for what you are saying...you're merely relying on rhetoric.

[apothanein kerdos]

How does murder and rape benefit society?

Let's say that I apply for a job. Another man with greater qualifications applies for the same job. If I don't get the job, I lose money and my family starves. Thus, I kill the man, my sole competition. This is a benefit to me.

If I stay with one woman, then my chances of reprodusing are greatly reduced. If I rape multiple women, my chances increase greatly. If all this (the human experience) was meant on survival, rape would be more beneficial than marriage, or even polygammy.

This is why an athiest cannot explain why rape is bad or murder is bad. They have removed God from the equation. They will always have a response, but it will never be one that constitutes a logical reply. It will always be a leap of faith.