What type of proof are people looking for to know God is real?
824308
Well... first, I'd at least like a coherent definition for what this "god" thing is supposed to be.
389028
there is evidence of God. look at some of the crazy things that happen that just don't seem possible. and what about the Bible? If you can't believe a Book that is the Word of God, how can you believe anything? even science, since man came up with it and man is not perfect? if there is a God (and I believe there is) than it only makes sense that He be perfect. but man is not. I personally would trust God any day.
517155
There is no "proof" of God. Do you know the definition of FAITH?
15143
I'm not sure. I believe it is real though. Wish I had some solid proof to back it up. Perhaps we wont know for sure untill civilians are able to land freely on the moon and see for themselves. Until that happens fully, we just have to rely on faith.
705491
You really can't.  It's a matter of faith.\n\nBut, if you wanted to try, you would have to come up with a definition of God.  Then attempt to find evidence of a being that meets your definition.\n\nEven then, most faiths have deceivers in their beliefs.  So, be careful.
122785
Science can't prove or disprove the existance of God. What proves God is the change that is evident when someone receives Jesus as their Savior. It is a life-changing event! You can't disprove experience. You can't tell me that what I know & experience in my life isn't real. And the same things I've experienced in my relationship with the Lord is being experienced by thousands of others just like me throughout the world. You can't tell me that what I KNOW is real is all in my mind. Just because you didn't personally go to the moon doesn't mean that it wasn't experienced by others. It happened. It is a fact. So is my relationship with the living God of this universe. He lives in me. End of controversy! <*)))><
1004852
I would like to see what proof and science you have to verify this.  I always thought it was faith that confirmed its existence.
318454
How to prove or disprove the existence of a god.\nHow to explain where we go when we die.\nHow to create new life out of  something that doesn't exist.\nHow to cure alzheimers, cancer, aids, etc.\nHow to feed the hungry of the world.\nHow to solve a problem without going to war.\nHow to prevent repetitive problems by using  past history.\nHow to find out if there is anything beyond the universe.\nHow to find a final cure for depression.\nHow to help us live longer.\nHow to form corrective surgery without cutting.\nHow to travel rapidly from one planet to another.\nHow to cure drug addiction.\nHow to travel on something cheaper than gas.
1103813
I shall not say God is real. However, you shan't hear me say that he doesn't exist either. I am waiting for proof from either side(besides the Bible).
1181013
well He is real and the Bible is proof. People throughout history are proof.\nI agree stop saying He isn't real. Because He is.
1134652
NO,\n\nThe burden of proof is on those who believe in "GOD".\n\nYou can't make up a person and say that if you can't disprove his existance then he must exist.
1082940
The faithful don't believe without proof. They do not run out and buy every product they see advertised. They read Consumer Reports just like the rest of us. If I tried to sell a theist a "magic potion" that would turn him invisible, or told him that his wife was cheating on him, he would ask for proof.\n\nWe only extend our need for proof one step further. We don't see why proof is needed in every aspect of existence except one.
449087
No, you shouldn't think god is real unless god manifests himself materially and can be measured scientifically.\n\nTo insist on the existance of something that can never be measured is "very superstitious!" as Stevie Wonder once sang so perfectly.  Most superstitious people are trippy, indifferent to those who think differently from themselves, and, to be nice about this, hunting for someone to rip them off.  \n\nNow, on the other hand, some things are real but are HARD to measure scientifically because they are qualities rather than physical objects.  Suppose God is the quality of generousity or kindness or increasing wisdom or enthalpy?  For this God, you keep reason "in," it doesn't matter very much how much faith you have, and God "inspires" us by making us kinder or wiser.\n\nExample: "My religion is kindness," said the Dalai Lama.\n\nExample:  "What Anglicans Believe in the 21st Century," a book by David L. Edwards about the Church of England and its international branches, including America's Episcopal Church.  I have a copy of  this book that I keep near the front door.  If the Mormans show up telling me about Jesus's evangelical private jet trips to North America during his ministry, or a frumpy woman wants to leave "Awake!" and "The Watchtower" with me, I respond, "I'll take that and read it!  And I have something for YOU!"  And I waggle "What Anglicans Believe" and try to force it into their hands.\n\nThey invariably retreat like I'd sprinkled holy water on a vampire.  It's quite humorous.  I haven't had to give up my paperback about Anglicans yet!
678096
Whether God exists is not the question. If you look you can see God's hand in life all around you. The question is more of what is God?  Through logical discourse, testimony of other people and other such evidence you can start to decide whether any religion has a clue, whether God is a factor of the human collective or spirits or whatever conclusion you can deduce from the evidence. \n\nThe first step is to look for inconsistancies in magnitude or frequency which imply intelligence over the normal chaos of randomness. If there is no God then the chaos factor will rule. There will be occasional accidents which can seem as if there was intelligent action behind them. By nature these must be rare as the result must be random if there is no God. I am talking about matters beyond normal human control that is. Also about understood factors. Cancer going into sudden remission is beyond our ability to understand right now. It cannot be claimed or refuted as a mircle because we just don't know enough to say. \n\nInstead look to things we do understand the mechanics of. Then look for the unexplained. A %100 fatal disease suddenly being cured is an example. Of course the diagnosis has to be accurate and the remission total. Changes in peoples lives from external sources. The mechanics of social interaction are well understood. The flight of a butterfly perhaps holds a clue if you study it with an open mind. To see God's hand you have to look for it. It won't often slap you accross the face and you can deny it's existance despite postive proof just as easily as you can find proof in randomness if you have decided before opening your eyes what you intend to see and work at seeing just that. To prove of disprove you have to look as objecctively as you can. Drop as many predisposiions as you can and just look for a while. After you look follow up possible leads and objectively say this might be or this can be explained by such and such and assign a probability of that being a reasonable explanation. Many "acts of God" are pure randomness. There comes a point where random is too random though in my opinion. Where mathimatical odds of coincidence become too high to be remotely acceptable. \n\nI believe there is God. The nature of God is something I am trying to learn right now. I reject all theology at this time as it is subjective and the nature of God to me is too important an aspect to just accept somebody else's opinion. I want to know for myself what it is. So I examine all the possibilities and discard those that discredit themselves. In general the preponents of a description of God to me are irrelivent. Bad people taint good ideas all the time. Still if a theology is by nature corrupt it will produce %100 corruption in it's proponents. If I meet a large enough sampling and see a commmon trait prescribed by that theology I'll reject that theologie's dogma as harmfull. That does not make the base theology wrong, just the surrounding dogma and celibration of it harmfull. Too many people reject God as non-existant based on very subjective criteria. Bad experiences with the application of dogma for example. Bad experiences with theology is another. They forget Theology is a man made thing. People do what they will with information, information being just another tool in man's hand. It can be used for good or bad. The source of the theology is distinct and different. To blame God for the actions of a clergy group is like blaming iron for being made into a sword. Iron is an ore that minds it's own business in the ground. Men discover it and make what suits them from it. This is free will in action. It is free will though that makes me believe in God the most. Nature abhor's a vacume and free will is a vacume of power. It is an unatural state. It's existance a rebuke to randomness and nature. All other elements follow closely very prescribed rules. Life does what it pleases when it
942619
how do you know that there is even a god?
592235
Dear musical_k,\n\nRegarding miracles...\n\n1. It is rational to believe that God exists (e.g., see http://www.godsci.org/gs/godsci/evidence.htm for scientific and intellectual evidence for the existence of God).\n\n2. If God exits, he can perform miracles.\n\n3. Given that it is rational to believe that God exists, it is therefore rational to believe that miracles are possible.\n\n4. I choose to be consistent and rational in my world-view and in my beliefs. Therefore I believe that miracles are possible.\n\nCordially,\nJohn
183571
How can you prove that it does exist?  Faith is not proof it is opinion.