|
I agree. Not one piece of evidence. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, there is no proof or evidence or anything beyond blind faith and wild conjecture for the
existence of any god(s). If there was proof, then surely someone would have actually presented some
by now.
Waiting... Waiting... Waiting...
Nope.
The arguments presented by charlee aren't proof either, nor even rational arguments, each and every
one can be proven to be ridiculous by the most cursory of evaluations and critical thinking.
There's no reason to believe in God, therefore the rational person does not. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There is no "proof" for God's existence. But there are significant arguments that make a case.
Throughout history theologians/philosophers have largely deduced that God exists as the best
explanations for things we observe about the universe and existence. Probably there are over 20
such arguments but the following are, in my opinion, the best.
1. The modified Kalam argument
2. The argument from the Mind
3. The existence of the nonphysical
4. The argument from design
5. The Moral argument
6. The argument for the existence of the soul.
Perhaps, taken as only singular arguments, each by itself would be only relatively convincing; but
as an aggregate they make a fairly strong case for the existence of God. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Yes, I personally can't say any proof, but I have heard from different knowledgeable sources
different ways to prove God. Plus, I believe in God because of my own experiences. I can't force
anyone else to have experiences with God, so it's kinda hard to prove God existed if all you can
explain is in your heart. Most people don't want to trust someone when they say they have
experienced God.... So yeah. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Your question has been not answered for centuries. Its a very complex matter. I guess it comes down
to an individual opinion and the reasons behind anyone's faith regardless of proof or not. Thank you |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is going to be third time that I repost this post that I wrote in a previous debate:
I AM NOT AN ILLOGICAL CHRISTIAN WHO IS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE "YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE IN HIM"
OR "ONE DAY YOU WILL SEE". I believe in God because of the self-revelation of Jesus Christ. However,
I believe that one can believe in God based on logic and science (I picked these two systems
because they are what atheists often champion). I will offer two arguments for God's existence. I am
open to any rebuttal
or question so that I may defend or clarify them.
My first argument is a form of the Cosmological Argument. It has three simple, deductive steps:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
A) This claim is easily verified. EVERYTHING that we see come into existence has a cause. No one
reading this is afraid that a ravenous lion is going to just appear in front of them. Why? Because
we all no that the lion would have to be put there; the lion would have to have a cause for
beginning to exist there.
2) The universe began to exist.
A) My first way of verifying this claim is going to be philosophical (so read attentively). If
the universe didn't exist, it would have an infinite amount of past events, an infinite amount of
past things would have happened. However, an infinite amount of things cannot happen. Why? The
easiest way to explain why is to show the contradictions that arise when working with infinities.
Pretend that I have an infinite amount of marbles. I give you all my marbles. I have none now.
Therefore, infinite minus infinite equals 0. Now pretend that I get another infinite amount of
marbles. I give you half (half of infinite is infinite). Now you have an infinite amount and I have
an infinite amount. Infinite minus infinite equals infinite. Earlier infinite minus infinite equaled
0. Therefore, an infinite amount of things can't exist. Therefore, the universe could not have had
an infinite amount of past events. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning.
B) My second way of verifying this claim is scientific. This way is easy. The most prevailing model
of the universe for the past 75 years, the Big Bang model, shows that the universe must have had a
beginning, with that beginning being called the Big Bang.
3) The universe had a cause.
A) this claim follows logically from the past two claims.
Having said this, I will explain the needs that this cause would have. It would exist outside of the
universe, thereby being immaterial. It would be extremely powerful, in order to make the universe.
It would be personal, in order to decide to make the universe (this personal, extremely powerful,
and immaterial creator of the universe would be God, in case you missed that).
My second argument is the Teleological Argument. The teleological argument is typically in a
biological form (evolution, life, etc.). However, debating evolution is very...well...I find it too
long, difficult, and emotionally charged. I've found that the physical form of this argument,
specifically the fine-tuning argument, is much easier and convincing. This argument has two
steps.
1) The universe shows signs of extreme, extreme, extreme, literally incomprehensibly extreme
fine-tuning for supporting life.(many examples of this can be shown, but I will limit myself to
2.)
a) My first example will be the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is a term in
Einstein's equation that, when positive, acts like a repulsive forces and, when negative, acts as a
contracting force. The cosmological constant must be extremely small in order to have the correct
amount of repulsion in the universe. Robin Collins (an Associate Professor of Philosophy) states
that the odds of the cosmological constant falling into a life-permitting range are 1 to 10^53. That
may not look that massive, but, for comparison, recognize the fact that the number of seconds since
THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE 15 BILLION YEARS AGO is 10^18. The odds that the cosmological constant
would permit life, written in its full form is 1 to
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
B) My next example of fine-tuning is gravity. I'm sure that we all know what gravity is so I will
not explain it (If you don't know, it is the strength of the attractions between objects, such as
the attraction to us and Earth). Robin Collins estimates that the odds of gravity being in the
life-permitting range are 1 to10^36. This odd, written in full form, is 1 to
1000000000000000000000000000000000000.
2) This extreme fine-tuning requires a designer.
A) This fine-tuning obviously requires a designer. For anyone to claim that this degree of
fine-tuning occurred by chance is ridiculous.
Now, I will examine some of the properties of this designer. These examples of fine-tuning occurred
at the creation of the universe. The fact that this designer designed these conditions of the
universe and the fact that this cause existed to design them at the beginning of the universe shows
that this designer exists outside the universe. This designer would also have to be extremely
powerful, in order to design the universe. This designer would also have to be personal, in order to
want to design the universe to such an extreme level to support life (this immaterial, powerful, and
personal designer would be God, by the way).
These, two arguments, in my opinion, create a very good case for the existence of God. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's difficult to follow what side I should go on, so I will be a sheep and stay on the popular
side.
There isn't any "proof" for god" otherwise we wouldn't keep on debating it. It always comes down to
the cop out faith clause. Believe it by all means but there is no proof for God's existence. It is
also impossible to prove a non-existence.
Really everyone should be free to believe what they wish just don't ever tell anyone it is fact. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You "want proof for the idea of God"? That would be different than actual God. I am having
difficulty understanding your request. You don't want the nature of faith to be discussed, but you
want to confirm that there is no evidence of God's existence? Hizashi is correct, it would no
longer be God really, but something else. It is the nature of God to be defined in faith for each
person that has faith. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If there was definite proof that a god existed, the study of this god would be classified under a
scientific field of study rather than a religious belief. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If there was proof, it wouldn't be a belief anymore |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Your question has been not answered for centuries. Its a very complex matter. I guess it comes down
to an individual opinion and the reasons behind anyone's faith regardless of proof or not. Thank you |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Define the term god
If God is all knowing how did the snake sneak into the Garden of Eden? If God is everywhere why is
hell defined as being absent from gods eye? If god is all powerful why did he have to sacrifice his
only son to save our souls?
Or more simply put if he made this universe exactly as it is in full knowledge of what it would
become and with full capability to make it anything he chose (which would have to be the case if he
is those things you say) then he chose to make a place where many evil things would happen to many
good people and is therefore also evil by my definition. I believe good and benevolent are also
commonly added to the list of characteristics you mentioned.
But those are just word games. The real ‘proof’ for me is that I look at the natural world
around me and find no need of a god to explain why it all exists. And given two possible
explanations for something I go with the simplest. Therefore my proof that god does not exist is
that there is no need or reason for god to exist.
|
| |
|
| |
| | |
15 May 2008 20:22
