as you brought up five year olds, let me add that like you, extremely few five year olds understand what proof is. proof that science would accept that is. nothing you have said here amounts to even scientific evidence much less proof that god created anything. and what is logical to one person is illogical to another. opinion you see. you've "proved" by your logic with no evidence, scientific again, that in your mind god exists when there is much evidence to support an alternative concept. the alternative concept need not be proven but the fact that you believe otherwise is the very definition of a delusion as psychiatry sees it. not my definition, psychiatry's description of the diagnosis.

That's a blatant cop out that most atheists take and I'll show you how it backfires. "There is no god" is a claim that most atheists assert, so using your logic, the claimant must prove there is no god or otherwise be agnostic. Atheism, in order to be successful, must answer the big question with concrete proof that no god exists. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. But, I know atheists know this and still continue to use this worn out tactic and then resort to ad hominem attacks by claiming a believer is delusional when the atheist is simply making a counter claim with no evidence what-so-ever while accusing those who believe and defend God of the same! The hypocrisy is astounding.

In order for atheism to be successful it has to prove the direct cause of the universe. It HAS TO say "X" is the reason for our origins and not a god. Otherwise atheism is presumptuous.

Christianity provides the evidence in the person Jesus which a majority of secular and non-secular New Testament scholars agree existed. There are over 50 extra-biblical accounts of Jesus albeit the majority of these accounts arrived AFTER the time of Jesus BUT within a few hundred years. Even Islam, a competing religion, acknowledges the existence of Jesus though claim him only as a prophet.

Modern day atheists enjoy the 'luxury' in the fact that these events happened over 2,000 years ago requiring proof that only modern technology can provide. In the same breath, no one question the validity of the existence of Alexander the Great where, if I remember correctly, a majority of his accounts were written about 300 years after his death and initially written about by a couple of men one being the court historian.

Secular New Testament scholars agree on the existence of Jesus but only acknowledge that he was an influential figure but that the claims of his miracle work were myth and lore as New Testament scholar Burton Mack would put it.

The evidence that Christianity uses to defend it's beliefs is simply rejected by the atheist and AGAIN with no evidence to back their claim. The atheists reads the stories of miracles and immediately exclaim, "Aha! a fairytale! It can't be true!" as if it were some vindication. They take the usual smug approach and wait for others to prove their point which is convenient for them and tiring to the believer.

It's much akin to someone identifying the sun as orange and insist that it is when it is in fact yellow. If one sees it as orange it is orange to them and no amount of evidence or proof will dissuade them: this is the atheist. I'm fully convinced that God could literally show his face in the sky and tell everyone, "I am God" and the atheist will insist it's a mass delusion or a trick of technology. There is simply no convincing the atheist. Atheism should be redefined as someone who does not want to believe in God.

I end most of my debates in this usual way: My charge to the atheist is that it's more intellectually honest to be agnostic than claim there is no god with no evidence what-so-ever.

samgem...far off base...what I'm saying is that no one walks up to anyone and claim that something doesn't exist unless it was first claim that it in fact deed existed ...therefore it is first up to the person that claim existence to provide the proof that it does exist

the thread is about proof that God exist the cop out is why someone instead of providing the proof ask for proof that something doesn't exist ...just admit that you have no proof

in the chrisitan singles forum perhaps no proof beyond faith is needed ...sorry but in this forum most expect proof for a claim of existence which is what the thread is asking for

I respect your belief as best as I'm able to, but it's still a cop out using semantics. Phrased differently, if I pose the question to you, "Does God exist?" what is your answer? There is no wiggle room here as much as atheists try. Most atheists answer this question with a firm "no" and that there is no good reason to believe that there is a god which is simply a matter of opinion. Agnosticism is at least more honest because the agnostic simply says there may or may not be a god because all the data may not be available yet.

I'll repeat again the evidence that you deny by stating that the existence and words of Jesus are the proof of God's existence. You just choose not to accept this proof. Atheists desperately use conjecture when it comes to this subject. They imagine all sorts of possible scenarios but refuse to take the evidence on face value. Christianity is,therefore, not reliant on blind faith alone but by the evidence and words of Jesus that I'm comfortable in assuming you view as a fairytale. God exists because Jesus existed in human form over 2,000 years ago. To be successful as an atheist, prove that Jesus did not exist and that the miracles performed did not happen.

I do respect you view point as best as I can and enjoy these civil debates on the big question. Best regards to you.

"Samgem" "does God exist" is not the topic of the thread...the thread is about providing proof that God does exist ..but since you apparently can't stop using that term then I will address it by using your "who came first" the chicken or the egg concept

which came first ....
someone claiming that God exist
or someone claiming that God doesn't exist

did people just out of the blue just start walking up to people and claiming that God doesn't exist ...or did someone first make a claim that a God does exist

and this is why those that claim existence should provide the proof of that existence instead of using a cop out like "prove that God doesn't exist"

The OP asked for proof without quoting scripture. I gave him the best possible proof I could within his own constraints. You expect scientific proof for spirituality? If you really want proof, read the Bible, and then do research on ancient Greek texts. Maybe even try asking God for the answers. I really doubt you want proof, you just want to believe there is no God or you would support both sides.

jrbogie says:
"you've "proved" by your logic with no evidence, scientific again, that in your mind god exists when there is much evidence to support an alternative concept. the alternative concept need not be proven but the fact that you believe otherwise is the very definition of a delusion as psychiatry sees it."

Let me see the "much evidence"... Oh wait, you say that it "need not be proven". Ummmm, OK.

As you're not the originator of the thread, why should I care care what you think? You're vain attempts at insulting me are laughable at best as even if I was still 5, I would laugh in your face. Be happy with your belief that God is unknowable or get of the fence.

jr,
By your own words, why would you continue to call people delusional?

There is no cop out on my side of the argument. I answered your question twice thoroughly. You're either just reading the first few lines of my response and nothing more or ignoring what I put forth. I'm fully aware what the subject and broadened the argument.

A negative can indeed be proved. I can say, for example,there is no food in your cabinet and open up the empty cabinet and find no food. I can say there is no money in my wallet and open up my wallet and find that there is no money in it. The word play pertaining to the subject of the thread is nothing more than semantics and you use it to bolster your position.

I personally don't have a firm believe system in any god or gods. However with that said, I just wanted to throw my two cents in even tho I expect to get bashed over it.

The thing most religious organizations count on is a person's "faith" that a god does exist and has their best interests at heart. To me its always seemed like "god" was more of a feeling then something that needed to be proven. It gives people hope to believe in something greater then themselves. I personally don't believe that there is some benevolent being in the sky showing a personal interest in my life, I don't crave the reassurance that if something good happens in my life it was god who made it happen or shaped events to make it happen. If the idea of a god makes you feel like there may be more then just the life we know then thats wonderful to have faith in something. Its not my job nor anyone elses to prove to you otherwise.

So i guess my answer to the thread question is that It cannot be proven one way or the other if a god exists as long as it exists to the people who believe.

Can't wait to see some of the responses to my two cents lol.

Think about the topic... "can anybody prove to me a God??"

A person doesn't ask for proof of something they already believe, or else the question would be.. "can anybody support my belief in God??"
So, by the phrasing of the question, I think the OP takes a stance that God doesn't exist. Perhaps I'm wrong in my inference, but I doubt it.

funches,
You have claimed "Jesus and I are one" (meaning yourself and Jesus), that statement alone is enough for me to start a debate with you, but why even bother? You obviously have a twisted agenda that only you understand...

That is actually a perfect viewpoint which I respect.
You made your point, stated your beliefs and did it in a civil way.

Good job.

scientific proof is the only proof i'm the least bit enterested in if anything is to be proved to me.

If you really want proof, read the Bible, and then do research on ancient Greek texts. Maybe even try asking God for the answers. I really doubt you want proof, you just want to believe there is no God or you would support both sides.

i don't want proof of god. i don't think the existence of god can be known therefore it cannot be proved. i'm only saying that what you offer, bible, greek texts, etc., is nothing but other people's testimony and does not amount to proof as i define proof. simple really.



do your own researching of what i call evidence. if you don't think that theoretical and astro physiscists have been observing various evidences for centuries then fine, look for evidence in your bible. having read the bible i find it to have no evidence whatsoever, only testimony as i said. and yes, the big bang theory nor any theory will ever be proved.



whether or not you care what i think is entirely up to you. so a question back atcha; why do you read what i think if you don't care what i think?



i THINK god is unknowable. i have no BELIEF that anything is fact. i like it here on the fense. i look down on one side and see an atheist who BELIEVES that there is no god. i look on the other side and see a faithful that BELIEVES there is a god. i see both as delusional thinking. neither of you can prove yourself right and the other wrong. nah, think i'll stay on my fense. like the air better up here.

i don't. i simply say that i find some thinking to be delusional as i understand how psychiatry defines the term delusional. again, it's not my definition.

I fully agree with herewegoagainx, that is probly the best answer I have seen yet.

you brought up the subject of five year olds as they relate to another poster. is that what you consider to be civil? or do you use the word "civil" only as regards someone who expresses "a perfect veiwpoint which you respect"?

Looking for scientific proof in a religion forum?
As an Agnostic, the only proof you could EVER receive is that there Is a God. For if you die and there isn't a God, then you die and cease to exist, never knowing. However, if you die and there IS a God, He will let you know.

Edit* something's weird, it won't put the quoted text properly, only the last paragraph is from this post...

you brought up the subject of five year olds as they relate to another poster. is that what you consider to be civil? or do you use the word "civil" only as regards someone who expresses "a perfect veiwpoint which you respect"?


Main Entry: civ·il
Pronunciation: \ˈsi-vəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin civilis, from civis
Date: 14th century

1 a : of or relating to citizens b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry <civil strife>
2 a : civilized <civil society> b : adequate in courtesy and politeness : mannerly <a civil question>
3 a : of, relating to, or based on civil law b : relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings c : established by law
4 : of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (as military or religious) affairs
5 of time : based on the mean sun and legally recognized for use in ordinary affairs
synonyms civil, polite, courteous, gallant, chivalrous mean observant of the forms required by good breeding. civil often suggests little more than the avoidance of overt rudeness <owed the questioner a civil reply>. polite commonly implies polish of speech and manners and sometimes suggests an absence of cordiality <if you can't be pleasant, at least be polite>. courteous implies more actively considerate or dignified politeness <clerks who were unfailingly courteous to customers>. gallant and chivalrous imply courteous attentiveness especially to women. gallant suggests spirited and dashing behavior and ornate expressions of courtesy <a gallant suitor of the old school>. chivalrous suggests high-minded and self-sacrificing behavior <a chivalrous display of duty>.

I'm sorry lol! I couldn't help myself...

If that was to me, I'm not sure as the quote function seems to messing up...
I was only relating my own life, at which point when I was 5 my father posed these questions to me. I also learned how to play chess at 5, but that was irrelevant to philosophy...

yeah lol..i was trying to quote what jrbogie said but it didn't work!

Samgem...it's a cop out because the thread is not about disproving God so why do you insist on harping on that fact...you either have proof that God exist or you don't