Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 Prove to me that God exists. - Minitokyo

Prove to me that God exists.

Does God exist?

Yes.
170 votes
Probable.
18 votes
I don't know.
49 votes
Improbable.
49 votes
No.
55 votes

Only members can vote.

This thread is full. If you wish to continue discussing this subject, you are allowed to make a new thread about it.

page 6 of 21 « Previous 1... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 21 Next » 501 total items

No, Gau was right. That was my very point.

What is the saying? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? I probably massacred that, but whatever.

Quote by psychokittyboy

Quote by beyondmeasureSo, with all the evidence in the world that God, most probably, does not exist... you still won't believe, if only because your "holy" book says God exists?

1.Prove to me God does NOT exist.

2. My belief in God has little to do with the Bible, though I do believe in its doctrines.

3. This topic seems more like an attack on religion than an open intellectual discussion.

Sounds like your only mad becuase what beyondmeasure said true. Why don't you answer the question?

beyondmeasure

From the mind comes the query.

To psychokitty:

Perchance you speak about the Christian God:

1. a. the presence of evil;

b. the omniscience/omnipotence conumdrum;

c. evolution;

d. Biblical illogic (what theologians call "metaphors")

I forgot the others. If you ask the others, though, I'll produce them ASAP.

2. OK, fine.

3. Actually, it is BOTH. The illogic of sticking to a belief even after it is disproved, again and again and again, is breathtakingly amazing in itself.

Quote by beyondmeasureTo psychokitty:

Perchance you speak about the Christian God:

1. a. the presence of evil;

b. the omniscience/omnipotence conumdrum;

c. evolution;

d. Biblical illogic (what theologians call "metaphors")

I forgot the others. If you ask the others, though, I'll produce them ASAP.

2. OK, fine.

3. Actually, it is BOTH. The illogic of sticking to a belief even after it is disproved, again and again and again, is breathtakingly amazing in itself.

1. a: You know, some would actually argue that to be a proof of God, rather than a disproof.
b: I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, unless you are leaving out the details and referring to the problem of theodicy, in which case that would be what you would have been indicating in the first "disproof".
c: And this disproves God how? Go take a look at what I've said over in the "God and Science" topic or whatever it is, where lately I guess I've had to argue FOR evolution. No serious theologian is in any way against evolution, and many, in fact, use it for further theological pursuit. As John Paul II said "There is no conflict between evolution and the Catholic Faith", and many other Christian groups feel the same. And this isn't something new either.
d: And what Biblical illogic do you refer to? If you only mean what theologians call metaphors, I think you have no idea what a metaphor is or what they were talking about. I suspect you, and unfortunatly you are like many Christians who tend to get attention (probably just because they are easy to attack), don't know much about Biblical studies and interpretation at all. Unfortunatly, most do not know the methods of biblical interpretation or anything, too many think they can just pick it up, read it however they want, or take it literally in all cases. You wouldn't discount the messages of books like Uncle Tom's Cabin or Huck Finn just because they didn't necessarily happen or happen that way, now would you? When they were never MEANT to be taken literally?

3. So... when was it disproved at all? And actually, what you describe would be something called a "Cardinal Conviction" which is very hard to get rid of, no matter what it is, and everyone has some. Generally though, they are in such a way that you really can't disprove them to the satisfaction of anyone holding it. You could make the reverse, for instance, and find people that would believe there is no God even were he to come down, die, rise from the dead, say "hey, I'm God, look what I can do" shoot out some lightning, cure a bunch of people, fly, turn lead into gold, and make chimps talk. They would explain it away one way or another (not everyone would, just saying you would find people that would). And, you might find people that believe so completely in a conspiracy that the Prime Minister of Canada is a robot, that even were you to dissect them and show they aren't they would say "they just have super-advanced parts that are impossible to tell from human parts".

Quote by beyondmeasureTo psychokitty:

Perchance you speak about the Christian God:

1. a. the presence of evil;

b. the omniscience/omnipotence conumdrum;

c. evolution;

d. Biblical illogic (what theologians call "metaphors")

I forgot the others. If you ask the others, though, I'll produce them ASAP.

2. OK, fine.

3. Actually, it is BOTH. The illogic of sticking to a belief even after it is disproved, again and again and again, is breathtakingly amazing in itself.

1.
A) This is against the idea of God/a god how?
B) Explain your logic here.
C) I fail to see how this even slightly disproves God.
D) Miss the part where I said my belief in God has little to do with the Bible I take it? And for that matter, the Bible proves/disproves God/a god how?
Anyway, none of those proved anything. Basically, all you did was state your reasons for not believing in the Judeo-Christian God.

2. Good then

3. I again ask to see this definitive proof, on either side, I see so many people speak of.
And seeing as people smarter than you or I debate this question, have debated it for millennia, and yet no answer has ever arose, I see no reason for you to be so sure about calling it illogical.

beyondmeasure

From the mind comes the query.

To Gau:

1. a: How so? Note that I am only talking of the Christian God.

b: A different kind, stated as: Can an omnipotent God change what he already knows would happen?

c: I've read it. Has the Catholic Church espoused NOMA?

d: Ah, theology. I read many books on the subject. Listened to many people on Biblical interpretation. Do not worry; I know perfectly well what I'm butting my head against.

And, to answer your query, I won't. But if you consider the Bible as a moral touchstone... then I suggest you reexamine your Bible.

3: Well and fine.

I recommend reading some C.S. Lewis.
a. For the first, the existence of evil he explains as actually being one of his reasons for becoming a Christian, or at least seeing flaws in his Atheism, even though he had previously held the exact same argument that evil showed there was no God. If you really want me to go into it, I can, but I think he does a much better job and its his argument, after all. (Primarily in Mere Christianity, though elsewhere as well, by the way).

b. Lewis again would help here, as he handles similar situations, and says its primarily a misunderstanding of eternity. God is outside of time, a plane of existence very difficult for us to understand having only experienced time, but outside of time, eternity, is not so much a sequence of things happening without end, as everything being present at once, and acting at once in many ways. Thus it would not be a matter of changing what he knows will happen, since hes already changed it and is seeing it happen presently. However, although that is actually a very interesting conundrum, I don't really see how that creates a problem with the existence of God. Seems to be a later stage problem if you ask me.

c: I can't figure out, nor can anyone else I've asked, what NOMA is.

d: I hope you didn't listen to ANYONE on the radio about Biblical interpretation. They're not usually actually theologians, so much as people with money to start radio shows and their friends. But ok, so you are familiar with the Historical-Critical method then? Or maybe the older, I believe Benedictine, method which many cloistered monks used?

And I examine my Bible often enough. You might find it more striking if you compared it to other moral guides of the world from before its time and other parts of the world during the times it was written. Actually, C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man gives you much of it in his appendix (he wasn't criticizing them in that book, he was pointing out a theory of moral progress and development). But you could find information in history books of various cultures and such as well.

beyondmeasure

From the mind comes the query.

To Gau:

a: Don't have Lewis, I think I'll take a look, just the same.

b: Outside of time? Wait, don't all reasoning beings do their thinking in time?

More on that, but I'll consult the books I do have, first.

And, yes, I think I overstated the importance of that conumdrum: methinks it would say something if God might be either omnipotent or omniscient, but not both.

c: Read this, if you have the time: Rocks of Ages, by Stephen Jay Gould.

d: I listen to everywhere but the radio, unless I know them and have built a reputation on studying the Bible and whatnot.

I'm familiar with the first, but the Benedictine, never heard of it.

Quote by beyondmeasureTo Gau:

a: Don't have Lewis, I think I'll take a look, just the same.

b: Outside of time? Wait, don't all reasoning beings do their thinking in time?

More on that, but I'll consult the books I do have, first.

And, yes, I think I overstated the importance of that conumdrum: methinks it would say something if God might be either omnipotent or omniscient, but not both.

c: Read this, if you have the time: Rocks of Ages, by Stephen Jay Gould.

d: I listen to everywhere but the radio, unless I know them and have built a reputation on studying the Bible and whatnot.

I'm familiar with the first, but the Benedictine, never heard of it.

a: thats good, hes a pretty easy read, admits himself hes not really a theologian or at least not for high theology, good writer though, insightful guy in most cases I think. At least thought provoking.

b: By all reasonable beings you mean... humans? There is no reason to believe that there aren't beings that exist outside of time and can think, maybe better maybe worse, in such a state (and not just God either). But yes, its nothing new that God is outside of Time, transcends time, as it were. We often say that God created Time and talk about His existence "before" time, or from eternity to eternity. Its all part of being completely transcendent, completely free, and even goes along with the concept of being the basis of existence and Creator of all things (in whatever way that creation came about, just to head off anyone that might jump to the conclusion it implies creationism or anything along those lines).

c: I don't have the time at the moment, but, as you have been kind enough to oblige my suggestion, I'll try to pick it up soon. I hope its not too long (the Lewis books aren't terribly long either, by the way) since I have classes starting soon and won't necessarily have alot of extra reading time, but I'll try and get it anyway.

d: thats good. The Benedictine method (and I may be confusing it with a different group, like the Dominicans, but I think its older then them), I believe, is an old method of reading the Bible, preaching it to yourself (kinda a strange concept but with reason), contemplating what was read, and then meditating on what was said. I believe those were the four steps anyway, not entirely certain about the second one though, as I may be mixing that with another group.

The way that Augustine used for Biblical interpretation was primarily a Symbolic interpretation, in case anyone is interested, and he, in fact, was very resistant to Christianity until it was explained to him in that fashion. Its kinda weird when you think about it that there is so much trouble of the creation stories, especially when you look at the fact that there are 2 right next to each other and a third later on. The one that actually started the idea that those MAY be literal was Aquinas, who himself said that they were not necessarily so, but he felt they were most likely literal. He also said though that it wouldn't really matter if they weren't, as they had so much more meaning anyway.
Historical-Critical is of course the standard for modern Biblical interpretation (in scholarly circles) although it has received some criticism itself in recent years for various reasons.

ttwen

ttwen

somebody

Quote by Gau
d: thats good. The Benedictine method (and I may be confusing it with a different group, like the Dominicans, but I think its older then them), I believe, is an old method of reading the Bible, preaching it to yourself (kinda a strange concept but with reason), contemplating what was read, and then meditating on what was said. I believe those were the four steps anyway, not entirely certain about the second one though, as I may be mixing that with another group.

oh, the method most of the Methodist church is using, because i did this before and so do most Methodist Christians. but usually for us, it is done with a booklet which gives little bits of guidance. so this is the name? I live in a Chinese community therefore i don't know what the method is called in English

Well i do not belive god exists
this "GOD" and "RELIGION" was originaly created about peoples fears of death, think about it we fear the unknown.
If god does exist then technicaly if you think you are believing in the right god but is actully the wrong one (you may say you know yours is the real one but its rubbish coz no one knows) youl end up in a bad place
RELIGION = WHAT WE DO NOW TO PUT IS "IN HEAVEN" WHEN WE DIE (A GOOD PLACE) WE WISH TO BE PERCIEVED AS GOOD TO GET INTO HEAVEN BECAUSE WE FEAR THE AFTER LIFE,
religion creates order but at the same time chaos and destruction

merged: 08-08-2008 ~ 12:15pm
Id like to add to onyhow's comment about the big bang.
If we say "god made the universe" then who made god "god made himself" does not work because if god made himself or was just there, the same rule can be applied to the universe itself (it was just there or made itself)

ttwen

ttwen

somebody

Quote by Kotori-Sohaka
this "GOD" and "RELIGION" was originaly created about peoples fears of death, think about it we fear the unknown.

God(s) and Religions are created because it's more than that, Mother nature is fascinating, yet terrifying, among the earliest religions, men worshiped the trees, the sky, the mountains, etc, and give them names, which eventually became "God" but you are right about men do fear the "unknown" (such as death).

Quote:
If god does exist then technicaly if you think you are believing in the right god but is actully the wrong one (you may say you know yours is the real one but its rubbish coz no one knows) youl end up in a bad place
RELIGION = WHAT WE DO NOW TO PUT IS "IN HEAVEN" WHEN WE DIE (A GOOD PLACE) WE WISH TO BE PERCIEVED AS GOOD TO GET INTO HEAVEN BECAUSE WE FEAR THE AFTER LIFE,

you can be good but you still can't go to Heaven. it all depends on God's judgement.

Quote:
religion creates order but at the same time chaos and destruction

care for a little bit of elaboration on this? i don't get your point.

Quote:
Id like to add to onyhow's comment about the big bang.
If we say "god made the universe" then who made god "god made himself" does not work because if god made himself or was just there, the same rule can be applied to the universe itself (it was just there or made itself)


this has been repeated many times, and arguing this probably will go around in circles again, but anyway, God is eternal. no one made him. He is there since the beginning and will be there forever.
actually, it is proposed that the universe is a cycle of expansions and contractions. ever heard of "Big Crunch" theory? this theory states the ultimate fate of our universe, which will collapse under a massive black hole. after that, the "Big Bang" will occur again, starting the universe and the cycle all over again.

Quote by XRW175P6MQ4

Quote by psychokittyboy[q(...) with all the evidence in the world that God, most probably, does not exist... you still won't believe, if only because your "holy" book says God exists?

1.Prove to me God does NOT exist.

2. My belief in God has little to do with the Bible, though I do believe in its doctrines.

3. This topic seems more like an attack on religion than an open intellectual discussion.

Sounds like your only mad becuase what beyondmeasure said true. Why don't you answer the question?


I sound... mad? You got that outa text with no exlimation marks? For that matter, you heard me through text?

And I made my point, if you are too dim to see what I meant, well, may God help you(Mmm, delicious irony).

Lol. Why does the absence of exclamation marks mean that you are not mad? No I can not hear you, this is an online forum where all I can see is text and pictures(if they are posted), and only a fool would think I have psychic powers. Maybe God granted me psychic powers, how would know he didn't? Sure I just said I didn't have psychic powers, but i could be lying. Technically I didn't say that I did not have powers. I only said only a fool would think I had them.

What gives you the right to refer to me as dim? At no point have I insulted you. If I have I certainly did not wish to offend you. I'm really just a bit blunt and at times argumentative. So why don't you ask the original question, instead of assualtiing the character and/or the intelligence of anyone who seems to question your blind loyalty to your current religious doctrine? "me thinks he doth protest to much" -shakespeare (i think)

On a more positive note, I would welcome the assistance of your imaginary deity you have so graciously offered me, regardless of any irony either expressed or implied.

Take a deep breath, calm down, and I think you may want to reread everything that has just been said. Its honestly not making you look good. I think you need to keep in mind that this is someone new to this community and thus two things should be remembered 1) He doesn't know exactly how we will react to certain things yet, and won't until he pushes a few areas and sees our reaction, and 2) He is not like our other members, with whom you are more used to dealing with, and whom I think you are confusing his intent, emotional involvement, and personality with.

@ttwen: I was unaware that the Methodists used such a method. Kinda interesting, since thats an old method begun, I believe, by the Benedictine monks, which was useful for their purposes and disciplined lifestyle.

@Kotori-Sohaka: I think I mentioned it before or maybe in other topics, but the idea of an afterlife is actually a bit of a late development in religions. Most did not have much of an idea of a life after this life for a long time, some still don't really. Judaism, for instance, eventually got a vague idea of Sheol, which is essentially a place of unconsciousness which everyone goes to, but not much of an afterlife. I believe they have developed that a bit further at some point in certain sects. Took a while for the Greeks to develop an afterlife concept as well, and longer for there to be a distinction between good and evil places for the afterlife.

You're argument of believing in the wrong God actually isn't an argument against God at all, you realize. Actually you just made a statement against unitarianism and pluralism.

An interesting quote from C.S. Lewis, who wrote much on the arguments you have just made (and whom himself had been a passionate atheist for a long time) from his book The Problem of Pain: "The spectacle of the universe as revealed by experience can never have been the ground of religion: it must always have been something in spite of which religion, acquired from a different source, was held."

From what I can see all anyone and everyone needed to do was answer the question and give their opinion if God exists or he doesn't. Instead most of the people on here are just arguing with others and I can say whats the point in doing that when all YOU HAVE TO DO IS ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION IF GOD EXIST AND GIVE YOUR OPINION ON WHY YOU PICKED THE ANSWER YOU CHOOSE!

My answer is I don't care if he exist. I will do what I want like live my life and achieve the things I want to do while still living.

Actually, the topic wasn't a question, it was a demand to make a case for the existence of God. Such a case requires far more than answering a non-existent question and providing an opinion. A proof, for one, demands more than opinion.

Next time read the TOPIC.

Dude the question is blantanly there and says DOES GOD EXIST? Now either i'm retarded or you didn't clearly see that question dude.

You mean the poll? You don't base the thread on the poll, the discussion comes from the topic and the first post.

ttwen

ttwen

somebody

NarutoDuo: i think by now you should understand most of the topics here are meant to go off into fierce debates? this is science and RELIGION category after all. and this is what makes the place interesting :)

Okay I understand ttwen and Gau but usually whenever i'm on forums like this ppl. usually use the poll as a question that needs to be answered. But still I understand what you mean ttwen and Gau its just that i'm not used to these kind of forums.

god exists in mind

Quote by bloodDThere is no proof that there is a mighty God because you are inside it.

So, a liver would have no way of knowing of the whole body? A citizen would have no proof of the society/nation?

Anyway, Pantheism runs into the problems of Naturalism in a more real way than anything else, and in most cases might as well be atheism.

bloodD

bloodD

The Darkness King

Atheism very good side means that you are not brainwashed by society. A liver wouldnt have no why of knowing unless it has been manipulated to a high level by another kind in the body a disease. Thats where it all started we are all sleeping Gods that have been sold out.

Sakichii

Sakichii

Ash-chan

Quote by Gau

Quote by SakichiiGod may or maynot exist.
The only way a God can 'exist' is if people believe in them, and have thaith.
The concept of God is more of a symbol to have thaith in.

do you mean faith?

Anyway, I propose very soundly that our belief has no effect on the existence of God, and many theologians would say it has no effect whatsoever on anything related to God. Although someone like Descartes might use what you could call a belief of God as the proof of God (although, interestingly, when he did so he in fact did NOT believe in God, until he proved God, but he was an atheist beforehand), that does not mean that God's existence is dependant on belief, He's not a fairy after all. Now, God either exists on His own (in a way truly on His own unlike how we exist), or, if and only if not, exists merely as a thought or concept, thus dependent on those thinking of it. But, for a God to truly exist, that existence MUST be completely independent of the rest of the world. In Christianity we call this Divine Freedom (of which a professor of mine wrote a book), or we speak of the Imminent Trinity (the life of God inside Himself, separate from everything else, which would be called the Economic Trinity).


I don't know exactly what I meant...because the concept of God is somewhat difficult for me to comprehend...
I've never read the bible...I did intend to...but I never got around to it... -_-'
I only read the first few pages...then I just kind of forgot I was supposed to be reading it...or I get busy with homework and stuff and the same thing happens...
But anyway, that was totally irrelivant.

In some way I don't think it really matters whether God exists, there will always be people who believe and people who don't...we can't ever know for certain, so the only way I feel that God can exist is through people believing...if nobody in the world believed and forgot, or just didn't know about God, then there would be no...uh....I've lost where I was going...well it's kind of like that annoying concept of 'if a tree falls in a forest when there's no one around did it make any sound?' with the stuff about sound not existing if no one was around to hear it...it completely does my head in. It's easier just to pick one side and stubbornly stick to it.

The thing that I'm wondering about the Christian God, is...is He a loving God or a vengeful God...
Sometimes I hear one thing sometimes the other.
I saw Stephen King's "The Mist" last week...and the way half the people were acting was outrageous...the woman convinced them that God was punishing them, and wanted Blood Sacrifices...end up commiting murder...which they should know is against one of the ten commandments...it was quite scary how perfectly good people can act that way...

Of course this is just a movie...but I wonder if there are people who actually believe this and would do horrible things in the name of God.

Sorry if I sound stupid in what I've just said, it's just hard for me to explain what I mean clearly...
(especially considering that I didn't even necessarily need to write all that...I just misread something you wrote, thinking that you'd asked what I meant...I must be really tired...)...

merged: 08-12-2008 ~ 01:11am
Oh yeah, faith...I'm always spelling that wrong for some reason...

"Chi wa Hideki ga suki"
#JapaneseLover#

I'd say it makes a pretty big difference whether God exists or not. I would say it makes all the difference. A Universe with God has an entirely different meaning, interpretation, purpose and general spirit from a universe without God, even if it is uncertain in both. The whole tree falling concept really touches on the concept of whether we believe ourselves to be the center of the universe, meaning, and reality, or whether we are simply another factor in a wider and larger picture. If we are the center, we may say that it doesn't make a sound because we, the criteria for meaning and anything mattering, don't know of it. If we are not, then it matters since why should our hearing it make a difference? Of course some would look at the problem as "can you be sure it makes a sound when you can't observe it?" in a way similar to, say, how Hume believed he could not be certain when he played Billiards that hitting the ball actually made it move and that hitting another ball would make it move based on any sort of physics and predictable outcome.

The Christian God is a loving God. In fact, we say "God is Love" (One of the letters of John, don't know which one off the top of my head). I could go further into that specific topic on that specific phrase, as I have done some research and papers in that area, but I don't think it's necessary or would be that useful right now.

In any case, as with the vengeful vs loving God concept, I recommend looking at what I wrote in the topic about the "god of Abraham", outlining a few points of how the "God of the Old Testament" is actually, contrary to some popular belief, a very loving God just like in the New Testament. Yes, some people screw that up alot, and some people have done horrible things in the name of God, but that does not mean God wanted or encouraged them to do so. On a much smaller scale, you can see people doing things for others all the time which they don't realize is extremely against that person, would do that person harm, or has nothing to do with what that person wants or expects of them.

page 6 of 21 « Previous 1... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 21 Next » 501 total items

Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.