Does a theory of God prove the existence of God when supported by old wives tales?
928313
When descriptive containment is equivalent to topological containment:\n\nhttp://megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm
548994
Where most religious people think to see "proof" of God, an objective person will only see something that usually can be explained by smthg else. The point is that the average human is not much aware of modern science (like cutting edge cosmology, quantum physics, abiogenesis, and the like) and just ignore the many possibilities for other explanations alternative to "God". \n\nThere is no such thing as "scientific proof" of the existence of God. No matter what religious people say.\nWe don´t really need the "God theory" to explain things in this universe. They can be explained by more conventional means. \n\nThe problem is that science is just too young compared to culture and tradition. \nMankind, my friend, is still at its childhood, and it still loves fairytales when going to bed.
71374
It actually seems that a predisposition to believe in god may exist on a genetic level. This idea has been popularized by Dean Hamer, a bigwig at the National Cancer Institute.\n\nI haven't yet read the book, but I'm very curious as I seem to lack whatever genetic component this is.\n\nI certainly can't accept this as proof of a deity, but I'd like to know more about it.
313748
1. It would have to be proven (not merely suggested) that the Bible is subsantially different today, than when it was originally written. \n2. At least one historical event recorded in the Bible would have to be proven (not merely suggested to be) false.\n3. The over 400 fulfilled predictive prophecies of the Bible would need to be proven (not merely suggested) to have been written AFTER the fact.\n4. A real, honest-to-goodness contradiction would need to be shown (and I'm not talking about the 'straw men' that get set up every single day).\n5. At least one major miracle of the Bible would have to be shown to have been a fraud contrived by mere men.\n6. I would need a memory wipe to remove the miracles I have seen/experienced which correspond to Biblical miracles (healings, multiplication of food, etc).
430262
The Bible says that miracles prove nothing!\n\nDeuteronomy 13:1-3 If there arise among you \na prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth \nthee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or \nthe wonder come to pass, whereof he spake \nunto thee, saying, Let us go after other \ngods, which thou hast not known, and let us \nserve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto \nthe words of that prophet, or that dreamer of \ndreams: for the Etrnl your Gd proveth you, to \nknow whether ye love the Etrnl your Gd with \nall your heart and with all your soul. \n\nSo, the Bible is clear, if the person says he will do a miracle, AND THEN DOES THAT MIRACLE, but his message is against what the Bible says, then dont believe him even if he did the miracle!\n\nAnd if the Bible says, \n\nDeuteronomy 24:16 \nevery man shall be put to death for his \nown sin (eesh b’chet-o yumatu)\n\nand does miracles, STILL, dont believe that he can die for your sins!
617580
No.\nIt's just as believeable as the "Praying trees" farce.\nPeople can make any pattern look like anything they want it to look like. It's just a few overzealous faithfuls who want to spread the name of God and His works.\n\nJenova\n(d.yuffie@gmail.com)
811412
Isn't this the same logic used to deny the God of the Bible?
239924
This is a question that I've always asked.  I see it as being closed-minded to believe that the Bible is 100% true.  It was written my man, not God.  It is human nature to exaggerate stories, and that's what the Bible is; stories.  I believe that there is truth in the Bible, but I think it's nuts to assume all of it is true.
31381
The "just look around you" argument is not a proof, but a restatement of faith. You could equally easily use the same argument to 'prove' the seeding of life on Earth by intelligent extra-terrestrials.\nThe great-great-great-great grandfather argument is not convincing either: for sure I can't prove that he existed back then, but how would that help me prove that God exists right now?\n\nThis is the 'ontological' proof:\n\n1. We humans have this idea of an infinitely perfect being that we call God. \n2. Existence is one of the perfections. \n3. Therefore, being infinitely perfect, God must exist. \n\nIs this convincing? Descartes - who proves his own existence simply by demonstrating his ability to doubt (I think therefore I am) - says: \n\n"How would I understand that I doubt...unless there were some idea in me of a more perfect being, by comparison with which I might recognise my defects?"\n\n"It would be impossible for me to exist, being of such a nature as I am (namely, having in me the idea of God), unless God did in fact exist"
297403
The ASKER wants arguments. Yes, this is a good question to really PROVE or DISPROVE a belief. Here is another argument AGAINST:\n\nPrem1: The Bible says that there are many gods, but only one true God the Father. ( 1Corinth 8:5,6; Psl 82:1 )\n\nPrem 2: JEHOVAH is the Almighty God. He is the God of gods. (Ex 6:3; Deut 10:17, King James of 1611 )\n\nPrem 3: Jesus is a god (or God). But he himself admitted that the Father is greater than he; that there are things Jesus can not do. (John 1:1; 5:30; Mat 20:20-23; 24:36,etc )\n \nCONCLUSION: Therefore, although there are many gods as the Bible says, these gods are of lesser power or might compared to Almighty God, JEHOVAH. Further, although Jesus is a god (or God to some) he has Limited powers or authority as he himself admitted.\n\nNote please re. 1John 5:7: "...these three are one" is a GLOSS--or a mischievous insertion--according to some Biblical scholars. That is why in some revised King James Version, these words are omitted. In some translations you won't find these words.\n\nTo the unbiased reader: \nJesus himself said: 'you must love God with all your MINDS...”  Judge for your self whether the Trinity is really a Biblical teaching, or just men's tradition to invalidate God's words.
385885
One of many proofs we have of the existence of God is the fulfillment of biblical prophecies in minute detail. Regarding Jesus Christ alone there are many predictions in the Bible about his coming as the Messiah and Savior of the world. One of which was given about him being born of a virgin hundreds of years before it took place.1 Another said he would be born in Bethlehem.2 Still another showed he would die for our sins.3 \n\nIn his book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell quotes Peter Stoner who, using the modern science of probability, shows that if one took only eight of the prophecies about Christ, there would only be one chance in 1016; that is, one chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000 that these eight prophecies could be fulfilled in any one person-unless the prophecies were inspired of God. In 48 prophecies about Jesus Christ there would only be one chance in 10 to the 175 that these could be fulfilled in any one person.4\n\nHowever, all the evidence in the world won't convince anybody of the existence of God unless he wants and chooses to believe. As another has said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." The bottom line is that belief in God is a choice—often a moral rather than an intellectual choice. If I believe in God, I am morally responsible and accountable to him. If I don't, I'm not (at least I don't think I am). I make myself my only authority. In light of all the evidence of God's existence this can be a rather ostentatious or pompous stance to take.
1142893
Basic logic dictates that material, mortal, 'local gods' of sorts, that came about by natural processes, MIGHT be possible, though NOT possibly covering all areas, and if existent, then most likely very rare... but that a universal god (as is the common definition of 'god') is impossible, due to being a specific entity, and therefore incompatible with abstract principles, such as 'everything' (i.e. the universe). Saying that there is a universal god is thus no less illogical than using, say, the number '2', as a principle in the derivation of a mathematical theorem.\n\nThat's not even counting the vast observational evidence against creationism and in favor of naturalism.
1135655
Well, the answer depends on what you mean by prove/disprove.  It is impossible to prove anything absolutely. This is because anything that you think that you know may be contradicted by something that you don't know at the time that you think that you have proof of that thing being true.  Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a flat earth are examples to consider.\n\nHowever, it is possible, in the 'normal, everyday' meaning of prove/disprove to prove the existence of something.\n\nIt is however impossible (logical thought dictates) to prove that something does not exist. Just because you have not found evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist: a round earth, before this was 'proven' by measuring shadows at different locations, for example.  However, it is reasonable to have significant doubt if many focused and well-meaning, rational people have tried but failed to prove that something exists.\n\nThus, it is easier to prove that god exists, if god does exist, than it is to prove that it does not exist, if it does not.\n\nBeing that many well-intentioned, focused, and rational minds have been unable to prove (in the everyday meaning) the existence of god, I recommend being highly skeptical of claims to the contrary, until some day in which solid proof is found.\n\n(Of course this above paragraph depends on your definition of god; and there are so many.)  \n\n;-p
1168324
Yes, it is proven in the same way you would claim to prove that George Washington or Christopher Columbus existed. Based on evidence provided by witnesses. \n\nNo one now alive has ever seen Washington or Columbus, but we all accept that they lived based on accounts from the period.  Same as Christ and God-- we can know Christ walked on Earth based on accounts written by witnesses (even those not included in the Bible, since you're so against that--there are secular reports of His earthly life as well, read Josephus among others). As for God, we see the order and beauty in the creation around us and see His handiwork & know that He exists.
283366
I'm not sure which I find more hliarious, that Patzy calls your article, "bullshit facts" yet there isn't a damn thing to prove God exists that isn't strung together inconsitencies and things that are unexplainable, or the fact that MommaToldMeNotToCome has no ability to read the article and see when the article you posted in fact written.  Fact is, no one should be calling anyone elses beliefs bullshit.  \n\nAs for your question, it could be.  There is no way to tell.  Lots of people were crucified at that time and what happened to Jesus wasn't special.  He was one of many.  \n\nAnd Susenjungle, the Shroud of Turin wasn't used by mary Magdelen to wipe Jesus face, it was what was laid over his body after the crucifiction and due to the oils the body secretes during the ordeal made an stain of his face and body on it.  I have some good books on the subject if you are interested, let me know!  I love sharing books!
632244
A belief in God allows you the privilege of believing the book. It is not the other way around as your Question would seem. Once god allows you to believe you will understand why the bible is soooooooo special. Here is part of an article I wrote for my local paper maybe it will help!?\n\nIt’s hard to see when your blind!\nScriptures for thought 1 Corn 2:14 & 2 Corn 4:4\n\nNeither myself nor any other human being has the ability to pursued, convince or other wise manipulate any other human being into a saving knowledge of Christ. There simply is nothing I can say, no act I can perform, that will fully allow you to understand what I KNOW to be true. I may be able to help you understand some things about God but I can’t make you KNOW him. This knowledge is a gift given by God, on his on accord, for his purpose and by his prerogative. Please understand that my saving knowledge or unquestionable trust in the bible is not a thought or an idea I decided or convinced myself into believing. The only reason I can believe what I KNOW is because God lets me KNOW. Period.  Water is wet, fire is hot and God is God.\n\nTry this analogy out.\nHypothetically imagine being born completely physically blind. You have never seen a single color, not a one. Nothing but total, empty, blackness. Now you ask me "what color is pink"? What could I possibly say to make you completely and accurately understand what color pink is? You can’t physically touch or feel color. You would be forced to either allow your imagination to take my descriptive words that you have no basis of context to compare them to and create and imaginary idea of what color pink is or you will concede that it is impossible to know what color pink is having never seen a single color of any kind in your whole life. Or…. Take little 2yr old Johnny and a hot stove as an example. Don’t you touch that stove little Johnny, it’s very hot and it’s going to burn you. But little Johnny doesn’t yet know hot or burn. I can futility try to explain to him what hot and burn are but until he experiences the realities of hot and burn he has no real context to understand them. Ah but after he grabs that hot stove…If eyesight were given to the blind. Now they would KNOW. Now they can understand the things we tried to explain with words. They now have first hand experiential knowledge that completely changes their perspective. This is kind of how a saving knowledge of Christ works. We are all totally blind and absolutely cannot know saving grace until he allows us to see him. He is the only physician in existence that can heal our spiritual blindness. There are no glasses to help, no magic word I can tell you. No, the faith to believe is a merciful gift of god. Now certainty we can and must teach each other things about God, which we can choose to, accept or reject, but teachings about god alone cannot make you completely and savingly, know God. When and to whom God allows himself to be seen is one of the beautiful mysteries that belongs exclusively to God. It is knowledge that only he posses.\nI understand this probably sounds a little weird and if deep thought is applied it may even sound terribly scary. Let me encourage you friends, don’t despair. There is hope. I know first hand. I wandered though this world blind as a bat for the first 29 of the 33 years I was alive. In the infamous song Amazing Grace “I once was blind but now can see”. Now, if you find yourself saying this is all a bunch of bullarkey….. then maybe next time my friend. But to all of you who are struck with deep curiosity and find yourself thinking; could this be true? I must know more. I want to see.  Knock and the door will be opened, Ask and you will receive. Call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved. Pick up a bible and read it with the desire to understand the words, instead of looking for ways to ridicule them. Enjoy they peace and comfort that only Jesus can give your soul.\n\n\nLes
1166862
The problem is, you are assuming in your "if there is a God" case that you know what to do to "serve" Him.  But you don't have any basis to know that.  If you are talking about some generic God, there are infinitely many possibilities for how to "serve" Him (assuming He even needs serving).  On the other hand, if you are postulating a very specific God that you have heard about from other people or a book, then you have created a false dichotomy; there aren't just two possibilities (no God versus the God of the Bible), but rather infinitely many (God of the Bible, God of the Koran, God of a book that no one wrote yet, etc.).  So if you "serve" one of them (whatever that means), you are neglecting to serve others.\n\nSo we are back to figuring out what you believe, and going with that.  I guess if you believe in no God, you could still pick one of the infinitely many possibilities of God to "serve," but that seems awfully arbitrary, and your odds of guessing right seem so infinitesimally small that it seems hardly worth the random guess.