Proving the Existance of God sans Bible

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Is it possible to prove the existance of God? Does Christianity rely on faith without knowing?

Faith is not based on zero evidence. However, faith is not based on proof either. I have evidences for my faith but no proof for my faith, or at least empiracally speaking.

In all actuality, what do we really know for sure? As I have said, I have thought in the past that I had "proof" for certain things I believed at one time or another but later realized such "proof" pointed me in the wrong direction of the truth and I assume many others here have experienced the same thing. All we can do is weigh the evidences presented to us and go from there.

Added numbering to make what I'm replying to clearer.
Originally posted by josephw
1) Not exactly. I did not know that God existed until I acknowledged that what I perceive is his creation. Even though I was told there was a God I did not know it until I believed he was the maker of all things.

2) I have been a victim of delusions. I know the difference.

1) Your belief in a God is dependent on the existence of things? What you seem to be saying is that your belief stems from a desire to explain the existence of the universe and that having decided that a God is a neccessary prerequisite for the existence of everything else you only then knew that God existed. The obvious point is that this requires that God is neccessary for the existence of the universe. It's not even clear to me that that the existence of God is a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe. However, neccessity is something that I think would be quite hard to demonstrate.

What if you had never been told of God's existence? You state that you know he exists because you believe he created everything else. Which strikes me as a stronger statement (I know) relying on a weaker one (I believe). Your knowledge of God's existence then depends on not having a viable alternative explanation for the existence of things.

2) No you don't. It is possible to be deluded and later to realise you are. It is also possible to be deluded and to fail to realise that you are. It is possible to believe yourself to have been deluded in some things and now realise that they were delusions, but nevertheless continue in other delusions which, because you now believe yourself to be free of delusions, are even more strongly reinforced.

Originally posted by DeepThought
1) Your belief in a God is dependent on the existence of things? What you seem to be saying is that your belief stems from a desire to explain the existence of the universe and that having decided that a God is a neccessary prerequisite for the existence of everything else you only then knew that God existed. The obvious point is that this requires tha because you now believe yourself to be free of delusions, are even more strongly reinforced.

Perhaps we could have a contest of sorts. The atheists can produce their evidences that God does not exist and those of faith can produce evidences that God exists. May the best ideology win!!

Edit: Just keep in mind that there is neither proving or disproving the existence of God, rather, it is merely evidence we are looking for in regards to his existence or nonexistence.

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps we could have a contest of sorts. The atheists can produce their evidences that God does not exist and those of faith can produce evidences that God exists. May the best ideology win!!

Edit: Just keep in mind that there is neither proving or disproving the existence of God, rather, it is merely evidence we are looking for in regards to his existence or nonexistence.

Oh well, the babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it?

Originally posted by DeepThought
1) Your belief in a God is dependent on the existence of things? What you seem to be saying is that your belief stems from a desire to explain the existence of the universe and that having decided that a God is a neccessary prerequisite for the existence of everything else you only then knew that God existed. The obvious point is that this requires tha ...[text shortened]... because you now believe yourself to be free of delusions, are even more strongly reinforced.

Are you willing to believe that you are deluted?

Originally posted by whodey
Faith is not based on zero evidence. However, faith is not based on proof either. I have evidences for my faith but no proof for my faith, or at least empiracally speaking.

In all actuality, what do we really know for sure? As I have said, I have thought in the past that I had "proof" for certain things I believed at one time or another but later realiz ...[text shortened]... ced the same thing. All we can do is weigh the evidences presented to us and go from there.

Thanks for not answering the question.

In your opinion is it possible to prove the existance of God?

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps we could have a contest of sorts. The atheists can produce their evidences that God does not exist and those of faith can produce evidences that God exists. May the best ideology win!!

Edit: Just keep in mind that there is neither proving or disproving the existence of God, rather, it is merely evidence we are looking for in regards to his existence or nonexistence.

There is only proving. Disproving is unnecessary. Only one side is required to enter any evidence here, and if your evidence is unconvincing then that's the end of the story. The atheists will win by default.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Thanks for not answering the question.

In your opinion is it possible to prove the existance of God?

The kind of "proof" you are looking for is not possible, however, there is evidence for his existance. One cannot put God under a microscope nor put him to the test.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is only proving. Disproving is unnecessary. Only one side is required to enter any evidence here, and if your evidence is unconvincing then that's the end of the story. The atheists will win by default.

So if people began telling you that unicorns were spotted around your neighborhood your response would be, "Prove it?" You would merely sit back and not investigate the issue on your own? Perhaps they brought you a picture. Is that proof or evidence? Perhaps they found a dead unicorn and brought you one of its horns. Is this proof or is it merely evidence? Perhaps you even caught a glimpse yourself as you begin to question what you had just seen, is this proof or merely evidence?

Originally posted by whodey
The kind of "proof" you are looking for is not possible, however, there is evidence for his existance. One cannot put God under a microscope nor put him to the test.

Provide such evidence then. And don't forget, you can't use the Bible.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Provide such evidence then. And don't forget, you can't use the Bible.

Can't use the Bible? Are we afraid of the Bible? Come on, why can't I use the Bible? The Bible is evidence for God's existence.

Originally posted by whodey
So if people began telling you that unicorns were spotted around your neighborhood your response would be, "Prove it?" You would merely sit back and not investigate the issue on your own? Perhaps they brought you a picture. Is that proof or evidence? Perhaps they found a dead unicorn and brought you one of its horns. Is this proof or is it merely evidenc ...[text shortened]... se yourself as you begin to question what you had just seen, is this proof or merely evidence?

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. It's not up to me to disprove their unicorn story. It's up to them to prove it. Or provide some evidence to support it. And the greater the claim, the greater the burden of proof will be. As Carl Sagan famously said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Originally posted by whodey
Can't use the Bible? Are we afraid of the Bible? Come on, why can't I use the Bible? The Bible is evidence for God's existence.

Because that's what these two guys are attempting to do. Read the posted story.
EDIT: And I'm far from afraid of the Bible, it's not evidence for anything other than the existance of the Bible.

Originally posted by rwingett
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. It's not up to me to disprove their unicorn story. It's up to them to prove it. Or provide some evidence to support it. And the greater the claim, the greater the burden of proof will be. As Carl Sagan famously said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

So our existence is not extraordinary? If I recall, this planet is the only one that we know of that contains life upon it. Therefore our very existence is exrtaordinary as well as the very existence of the universe itself. There is no evidence for the universe being eternal. We can look as far back as the Big Bang and that is it. Also, abiogenesis is not provable. So either matter and living organisms popped into existence on their own or matter and life itself is eternal.........but then what of the Big Bang? How could life be eternal in light of the Big Bang having occured? The only solution is that the source of life is not confined to the material universe or that life simply sprang from nonlife which is in itself unscientific in terms of what we observe.

I am sure you have heard of the fine tuning of the universe for life by Dr. Hugh Ross in 1998.
1. In terms of the Big Bang, had the strong nuclear force constant been larger, no hydrogen would have formed, atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable, thus no life chemistry. If smaller, no elements heavier than hydrogen would form; again, no life chemistry.
2. In terms of the gravitational force constant, had it been larger, stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller, stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion for life chemstry.
3. In terms of the electromagnetic force constant, had it been greater chemical bonding would be disrupted, elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission. If lesser, chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemstry.
4. In terms of the expansion of the universe, if it were greater no large galaxies would form, and if smaller the universe would collapse.

There are 30 more of similiar observations about the "fine tuning" of the universe and I would continue if I had the time and patience. Then again, I am sure you are largely unimpressed by all of this and am sure you have heard it before. Nonetheless, it is evidence. 😀

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Because that's what these two guys are attempting to do. Read the posted story.
EDIT: And I'm far from afraid of the Bible, it's not evidence for anything other than the existance of the Bible.

Wrong again. The Bible is the ONLY religious text in which a scientific discipline is associated with it which is Biblical archaeology. The Bible says it is there and they go a digg'in. If it is historiaclly accurate enough to base a scientific discipline upon it I say chalk it up as evidence as to its accuracy.