Proof of God

[mike2]

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.

AK I enjoy reading you and I have learned from things you have said

Personally I think you have stepped over the line with 'man' by saying that just because a person doesnt believe he can prove Gods existance, they have no business believing in Him.

I realize that is your opinion, but sometimes *sigh* you can be pompus in your self indignation.

How many people have already proven Gods existance???? In all time how many people have?

I dont believe I can prove my feelings, but I can show them. I believe in God, I feel Him, I know He is real, and Christ was as real as you and I. Some feelings you cannot prove through articulation, like love, you can describe it, you can show it, but you cant prove it.

[apothanein kerdos]

Show me your physical proof.

To an unbeliever God does not exist so He can't be be taken out of the equation. You can't take something out that isn't there.

And why must the human experience be explained? Just because we have laws for this or that doesn't explain the existance of God.

Fiosh and Mike2 know where you're coming from...so do I. But what you're giving us is not proof.

Physical proof? Why does all proof have to be physical? Do you realize you just bit into the naturalism lie?

Regardless...you're missing my point entire. Fiosh gets it (i can tell). You don't. You point to the athiest and tell them that because they have taken God out of the equation there is no reason for existence....there is no explanation.

The reason an explanation is important is that, unless you absoultely deny it, man is unique. We are the only intelligent, rational, moral, cultural beings on the planet. How did we get this way? In fact, it is important because there is a natural drive in men to know where they came from. This is why even the naturalists study the origins of man; they want to know where we came from.

The reason a lack of explanation using naturalistic means is important is because the only explanation for the reason man is the way he is, is that God does exist.

The mathmatical equation, 1+1+1+1+1+1= 6 is simple enough. If I remove the 6, we still have enough logic to determine that the 6 should be there. Assume that the 6 is God, and the 1's are human experiences such as love, morality, culture, personality, etc. We have all of these things but no explanation as to where they lead or why they are here. The athiest has removed the 6 from the equation and assumes nothing is there. In other words, 1+1+1+1+1+1 = 0. This doesn't work logically.......the only logical answer is 6.

Likewise, with the human experiences, the only logical answer is that there is a God, and He is not silent. When we remove Him from the equation, there is no longer any logic in our experiences.

[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.

AK I enjoy reading you and I have learned from things you have said

Personally I think you have stepped over the line with 'man' by saying that just because a person doesnt believe he can prove Gods existance, they have no business believing in Him.

I realize that is your opinion, but sometimes *sigh* you can be pompus in your self indignation.

How many people have already proven Gods existance???? In all time how many people have?

I dont believe I can prove my feelings, but I can show them. I believe in God, I feel Him, I know He is real, and Christ was as real as you and I. Some feelings you cannot prove through articulation, like love, you can describe it, you can show it, but you cant prove it.

It's a valid point that I made. Basically....if we don't believe there is proof for God....then we are essentially denying the power done in our own lives....therefore there is no reason to believe.

[Fiosh]

( AK: sounds like you're into Kant ...summum bonum???)

So we are basically back to the eternal "meaning of life" question. If you ask me why I exist, I will respond, "I was created by God, to know Him, love Him, and serve Him, and to live with Him thru all eternity"....or the adult equivalent.

If I ask an atheist that question, they need to respond, "There is no reason; I simply am". eh?

Without God, we have no reason to even exist. There is no point to life.

[mike2]

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.

AK I enjoy reading you and I have learned from things you have said

Personally I think you have stepped over the line with 'man' by saying that just because a person doesnt believe he can prove Gods existance, they have no business believing in Him.

I realize that is your opinion, but sometimes *sigh* you can be pompus in your self indignation.

How many people have already proven Gods existance???? In all time how many people have?

I dont believe I can prove my feelings, but I can show them. I believe in God, I feel Him, I know He is real, and Christ was as real as you and I. Some feelings you cannot prove through articulation, like love, you can describe it, you can show it, but you cant prove it.

It's a valid point that I made. Basically....if we don't believe there is proof for God....then we are essentially denying the power done in our own lives....therefore there is no reason to believe.

In that case we are looking at our own personal proof that we would rationalize to ourselves, and have gotten away from the original thought of communicating that to others

I have often used the idea of taking God out of the equation and have found it useful to use the terms good and evil, and the balance of that in our lives, with non believers, once that was understood the question that inevitably comes up is, what influences good and evil.

[apothanein kerdos]

( AK: sounds like you're into Kant ...summum bonum???)

So we are basically back to the eternal "meaning of life" question. If you ask me why I exist, I will respond, "I was created by God, to know Him, love Him, and serve Him, and to live with Him thru all eternity"....or the adult equivalent.

If I ask an atheist that question, they need to respond, "There is no reason; I simply am". eh?

Without God, we have no reason to even exist. There is no point to life.

Kant.....I'll save that for another thread

He has some good points....but is off on some others (such as thinking autonomously).

ANyway.......beteen your two answers, you bring up a very valid point. THe ultimate question then, is....which one of us can actually live out that answer?

In that case we are looking at our own personal proof that we would rationalize to ourselves, and have gotten away from the original thought of communicating that to others

Good point...at the same time there is something to be said of personal experience. In other words, it validates the bigger truth. Not only am I saying this is truth, look, I have lived it. In other words, the philosophy explains the problems of the world, the problem of man, AND it can be lived.

Make sense?

[Guest man]

In order for your theory to work, God needs to be in the aquation from the very start. If you're talking to an athiest, God is not in the equation because the athiest does not believe in God, therefore He can't be taken out of the equation. You can't take out what isn't there.

Absolute proof of God's existance requires physical proof. The same holds true for denying His existance. No one can prove that He doesn't exist.

Your 1+1 thing doesn't prove anything. You made 6 = God, to the athiest there is no God, so again God can not be in the equation.

You talk about moral laws. In some parts of the world rape is an everyday thing. Look at some of the laws in the middle east.

Moral laws don't prove His existance.

Absolute proof requires physical proof. I know He's there because of what He has done for me, but an athiest will say it is only coincidence.

Try this...take God out of the equation and try to prove He exists. You can't. There is nothing on this earth that can be used to prove His existance. Many things point to His existance but none of it is proof positive of His existance. It can't be done. If it could, there would have been no reason for Christ to be born. You can't deny what you can see.

You mention a leap of faith. Everyone who believes has to take that leap. An athiest doesn't have too because he doesn't believe. Without faith you need physical proof.

[CellShade]

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.

Absolutely agree and see your point.

Atheist rather see things sas survival, while many atheist will say rape is bad, but then again, why do they say that, after all, for them it's just "survival".

Show me your physical proof.

To an unbeliever God does not exist so He can't be be taken out of the equation. You can't take something out that isn't there.

And why must the human experience be explained? Just because we have laws for this or that doesn't explain the existance of God.

Fiosh and Mike2 know where you're coming from...so do I. But what you're giving us is not proof.

Physical proof? Why does all proof have to be physical? Do you realize you just bit into the naturalism lie?

Regardless...you're missing my point entire. Fiosh gets it (i can tell). You don't. You point to the athiest and tell them that because they have taken God out of the equation there is no reason for existence....there is no explanation.

The reason an explanation is important is that, unless you absoultely deny it, man is unique. We are the only intelligent, rational, moral, cultural beings on the planet. How did we get this way? In fact, it is important because there is a natural drive in men to know where they came from. This is why even the naturalists study the origins of man; they want to know where we came from.

The reason a lack of explanation using naturalistic means is important is because the only explanation for the reason man is the way he is, is that God does exist.

The mathmatical equation, 1+1+1+1+1+1= 6 is simple enough. If I remove the 6, we still have enough logic to determine that the 6 should be there. Assume that the 6 is God, and the 1's are human experiences such as love, morality, culture, personality, etc. We have all of these things but no explanation as to where they lead or why they are here. The athiest has removed the 6 from the equation and assumes nothing is there. In other words, 1+1+1+1+1+1 = 0. This doesn't work logically.......the only logical answer is 6.

Likewise, with the human experiences, the only logical answer is that there is a God, and He is not silent. When we remove Him from the equation, there is no longer any logic in our experiences.

Also completly agree here, if you don't have God, basically 1= love =0 to you since without God there is no true love.

And therefore if God didn't exist we wouldn't be able to know what love is.

In order for your theory to work, God needs to be in the aquation from the very start. If you're talking to an athiest, God is not in the equation because the athiest does not believe in God, therefore He can't be taken out of the equation. You can't take out what isn't there.

Absolute proof of God's existance requires physical proof. The same holds true for denying His existance. No one can prove that He doesn't exist.

Your 1+1 thing doesn't prove anything. You made 6 = God, to the athiest there is no God, so again God can not be in the equation.

You talk about moral laws. In some parts of the world rape is an everyday thing. Look at some of the laws in the middle east.

Moral laws don't prove His existance.

Absolute proof requires physical proof. I know He's there because of what He has done for me, but an athiest will say it is only coincidence.

Try this...take God out of the equation and try to prove He exists. You can't. There is nothing on this earth that can be used to prove His existance. Many things point to His existance but none of it is proof positive of His existance. It can't be done. If it could, there would have been no reason for Christ to be born. You can't deny what you can see.

You mention a leap of faith. Everyone who believes has to take that leap. An athiest doesn't have too because he doesn't believe. Without faith you need physical proof.

Man, I believe you ain't seing AK's point of view, the 1+1 things proves a lot.

Also you overlooped something, evidence or proof that is physical isn't necesary, the wind for example,we don't see it, but it's known to exist, then also you

may say that you can feel the wind, and also that you can see the wind impacting other things like tree leafs and stuff, but so does God.

Also Love is known to exist, can we see it?No.

But the reason hard core atheist can't feel true love is because they don't even believe there is a God, therefore Love itself doesn't exist to them, since 1+1= 0 to them.

I so far agree completly on AK's point of view and see his point.

[mike2]

In order for your theory to work, God needs to be in the aquation from the very start. If you're talking to an athiest, God is not in the equation because the athiest does not believe in God, therefore He can't be taken out of the equation. You can't take out what isn't there.

Absolute proof of God's existance requires physical proof. The same holds true for denying His existance. No one can prove that He doesn't exist.

Your 1+1 thing doesn't prove anything. You made 6 = God, to the athiest there is no God, so again God can not be in the equation.

You talk about moral laws. In some parts of the world rape is an everyday thing. Look at some of the laws in the middle east.

Moral laws don't prove His existance.

Absolute proof requires physical proof. I know He's there because of what He has done for me, but an athiest will say it is only coincidence.

Try this...take God out of the equation and try to prove He exists. You can't. There is nothing on this earth that can be used to prove His existance. Many things point to His existance but none of it is proof positive of His existance. It can't be done. If it could, there would have been no reason for Christ to be born. You can't deny what you can see.

You mention a leap of faith. Everyone who believes has to take that leap. An athiest doesn't have too because he doesn't believe. Without faith you need physical proof.

man,

I think you have to keep in mind AK's original post , that we as Christians can prove Gods existance.

With that we have to assume that there is already a belief in God.

How does one Christian prove Gods existance to another Christian, not to an atheist

[Kabowd]

man, please don't take this offensively, but I think you may be in over your head. You don't seem to be following along. Please take to heart the advice that has been given to you in other topics where you have defended your belief that pursuing deeper knowledge and understanding is basically unnecessary. Again, I don't intend to hurt your feelings, but some of your posts definately show a need for you to do some further study, at least some reading. I'd encourage you greatly to read some of the books that have been suggested previously (Schaeffer, Wittmer, Strobel, Lewis, Moreland, just for starters). Scripture teaches us that those who walk with the wise will become wise. I'm hoping that these kinds of discussion offer you evidence that indeed, pursuing biblical knowledge is important (especially if you intend on having intelligent discussions about topics such as origins and God's existence). These types of discussion will require a higher level of thinking, that is only possible if a person applies their mind and develops the skills.

Again, I'm not trying to offend you or put you down. Just taking this opportunity to point out that you might need to reconsider your belief that doctrinal/theological training isn't necessary...especially if you intend on engaging in discussions such as this.