Hello again, everyone.
I have a new question. Can anyone provide proof or positive evidence for God's existence??
jd
Proof for God's existence
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Proof for God's existence
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Judging from your posts about the inspiration of scripture, I suspect that you would hold out a more stringent test for "absolute proof" of the existence of God than I would.
Since you are coming from an existential angle on epistemology, I think that such a thing as absolute certainty about any information may be out of reach for you. If (and this is the oldest argument in the book, but still the best) a man had occasion to examine the space shuttle and to observe and appreciate the complexity of the technology that makes it what it is, and then could decide that there is nonetheless no absolute proof that it was designed by intelligence and for a purpose, then I am sure there would also be no absolute proof of God that that man could accept.
For me, seeing the buildings of a modern shopping mall provides absolute proof of the existence of an architect, though the name and face of the architect may be totally unfamiliar to me. Those who can consider the complexity of the cell, or of such combinations of cells as make up the brain or the nervous system, and can say that there is no proof of the existence of an intelligent designer, are creating artificial problems for themselves in belief that go beyond the perimeters of rationality.
If the handiwork of an inventor or of an artist does not provide absolute proof of the existence of an inventor or artist, then the Bible is incorrect in its assertions about this (Ps.19:1ff/ Rom.1:20), and we are simply deprived of personal certainty on a number of issues for which there is no reasonable occasion of doubt.
If I see a painting by Leonardo da Vinci, I may not know whether it was really painted by that man or by another, but I do know that it was not painted by no one. The identity of the painter may be open to question, but the existence of a painter is not open to reasonable doubt.
Likewise, the elaborate functional design and the aesthetic artistry of the creation may not tell us whether these things were created by the God of the Bible, or by some other god, but they certainly prove beyond reasonable doubt that a god or God exists or existed in order to bring them into existence.
The question of whether this God has ever manifested Himself to mankind otherwise than simply in the creation, and whether that revelation may be found in the Christian Bible is another matter, worthy of separate consideration. I believe this question can be decided upon the merits of the BIble itself--the most convincing of which (to my mind) is the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy.
But then, I am a simple man. I am willing to believe any proposition for which no reasonable doubt can be sustained. If I am willing to doubt the implications of the available evidences for the existence of the God of the Bible, there is nothing to guarantee that I would allow myself to be persuaded even if God were to pull the heavens aside, look down into my face and shout, "Check it out! I'm God!"
After all, I might be hallucinating.
Since you are coming from an existential angle on epistemology, I think that such a thing as absolute certainty about any information may be out of reach for you. If (and this is the oldest argument in the book, but still the best) a man had occasion to examine the space shuttle and to observe and appreciate the complexity of the technology that makes it what it is, and then could decide that there is nonetheless no absolute proof that it was designed by intelligence and for a purpose, then I am sure there would also be no absolute proof of God that that man could accept.
For me, seeing the buildings of a modern shopping mall provides absolute proof of the existence of an architect, though the name and face of the architect may be totally unfamiliar to me. Those who can consider the complexity of the cell, or of such combinations of cells as make up the brain or the nervous system, and can say that there is no proof of the existence of an intelligent designer, are creating artificial problems for themselves in belief that go beyond the perimeters of rationality.
If the handiwork of an inventor or of an artist does not provide absolute proof of the existence of an inventor or artist, then the Bible is incorrect in its assertions about this (Ps.19:1ff/ Rom.1:20), and we are simply deprived of personal certainty on a number of issues for which there is no reasonable occasion of doubt.
If I see a painting by Leonardo da Vinci, I may not know whether it was really painted by that man or by another, but I do know that it was not painted by no one. The identity of the painter may be open to question, but the existence of a painter is not open to reasonable doubt.
Likewise, the elaborate functional design and the aesthetic artistry of the creation may not tell us whether these things were created by the God of the Bible, or by some other god, but they certainly prove beyond reasonable doubt that a god or God exists or existed in order to bring them into existence.
The question of whether this God has ever manifested Himself to mankind otherwise than simply in the creation, and whether that revelation may be found in the Christian Bible is another matter, worthy of separate consideration. I believe this question can be decided upon the merits of the BIble itself--the most convincing of which (to my mind) is the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy.
But then, I am a simple man. I am willing to believe any proposition for which no reasonable doubt can be sustained. If I am willing to doubt the implications of the available evidences for the existence of the God of the Bible, there is nothing to guarantee that I would allow myself to be persuaded even if God were to pull the heavens aside, look down into my face and shout, "Check it out! I'm God!"
After all, I might be hallucinating.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation
I cannot prove the existence of God. But some years ago, I devised the following scientific proof of supernatural creation. Tell me what you think.
Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation
Preamble:
What this proof does is to prove logically the existence of supernatural creation of the Universe.
What this proof does not do is to prove the existence of God as conceived by some religion such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It does not prove that this creator is personal, not does it prove that there is only one creator.
Nor are any of the characteristics of any creator indicated.
Premises:
The efficacy of this proof depends upon the following three premises:
1. The Universe is finite. (Note: "Universe" means the total of all matter and energy that exists.)
2. The first law of thermodynamics holds, i.e. , within a closed system, matter (and its equivalent, energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
3. The second law of thermodynamics holds, i.e., the total energy
within a closed system is continuously decreasing in its level of
availability. (Or in layman's terms, the system is "running down").
Notes on the premises:
1. The first premise is generally accepted within the scientific community. In fact, a finite Universe is implied by the widely accepted "big bang" theory. This theory states that all matter and energy existed within a very small volume of space, smaller than a molecule of water, and since that time has been expanding, resulting in the Universe as we know it. If the "big bang" theory is true, then the total quantity of matter and energy must be finite.
2. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are considered to
be the most widely-accepted generalizations known to science.
The Proof:
1. Since the Universe is finite, it is itself a closed system. Thus the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to it.
2. Either the Universe always existed, or else it came into being (either instantaneously or over a period of time), or it is still coming into being.
3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for the whole Universe to have "run down". Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning.
4. If the Universe (total of all matter and energy) had a beginning, then its matter and energy couldn't have come into being within itself. For this would contradict premise 2 (that within a closed sytem, matter and energy can be neither created not destoyed). The same applies if the Universe is still coming into being.
Conclusion:
Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a supernatural source.
Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation
Preamble:
What this proof does is to prove logically the existence of supernatural creation of the Universe.
What this proof does not do is to prove the existence of God as conceived by some religion such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It does not prove that this creator is personal, not does it prove that there is only one creator.
Nor are any of the characteristics of any creator indicated.
Premises:
The efficacy of this proof depends upon the following three premises:
1. The Universe is finite. (Note: "Universe" means the total of all matter and energy that exists.)
2. The first law of thermodynamics holds, i.e. , within a closed system, matter (and its equivalent, energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.
3. The second law of thermodynamics holds, i.e., the total energy
within a closed system is continuously decreasing in its level of
availability. (Or in layman's terms, the system is "running down").
Notes on the premises:
1. The first premise is generally accepted within the scientific community. In fact, a finite Universe is implied by the widely accepted "big bang" theory. This theory states that all matter and energy existed within a very small volume of space, smaller than a molecule of water, and since that time has been expanding, resulting in the Universe as we know it. If the "big bang" theory is true, then the total quantity of matter and energy must be finite.
2. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are considered to
be the most widely-accepted generalizations known to science.
The Proof:
1. Since the Universe is finite, it is itself a closed system. Thus the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to it.
2. Either the Universe always existed, or else it came into being (either instantaneously or over a period of time), or it is still coming into being.
3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for the whole Universe to have "run down". Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning.
4. If the Universe (total of all matter and energy) had a beginning, then its matter and energy couldn't have come into being within itself. For this would contradict premise 2 (that within a closed sytem, matter and energy can be neither created not destoyed). The same applies if the Universe is still coming into being.
Conclusion:
Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a supernatural source.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Steve said,
Since you are coming from an existential angle on epistemology, I think that such a thing as absolute certainty about any information may be out of reach for you.
I was making the claim that epistemic certainty is unattainable objectively regarding the Scriptures. That still holds true. I dont know if there is an existential epistemology.
There is a difference between "belief" and "knowledge", or certainty. The traditiona Cartesian model is to rule out doubt. That was not done regarding the Scripture question. And I am not holding out for a particular high standard of certainty, just basic certainty.
What some are missing in all this, is they think they are certain regarding some proposition, yet they actually hold to it by faith, subjectively, rather knowing it for certain, because of the alternative possibilities.
Regarding the shopping mall analogy...............How does any empirical evidence demonstrate a metaphysical truth??
Instead of giving positive evidence for God's existence, you have merely inferred something. But that doesnt follow. Why not claim aliens, or some other alternative answer?
How is it that you can automatically apply this to "God did it"?
Perhaps what you perceive as "order" in the universe is inherent in matter.
Perhaps what you see is only "apparent order", but is just the result of mechanical processes.
Furthermore, even if one assents to a belief in some kind of "designer", this is no way enables us to know what kind of god it is. No attributes or characteristics are discernable from some supposed "order".
sincerely, jim
Since you are coming from an existential angle on epistemology, I think that such a thing as absolute certainty about any information may be out of reach for you.
I was making the claim that epistemic certainty is unattainable objectively regarding the Scriptures. That still holds true. I dont know if there is an existential epistemology.
There is a difference between "belief" and "knowledge", or certainty. The traditiona Cartesian model is to rule out doubt. That was not done regarding the Scripture question. And I am not holding out for a particular high standard of certainty, just basic certainty.
What some are missing in all this, is they think they are certain regarding some proposition, yet they actually hold to it by faith, subjectively, rather knowing it for certain, because of the alternative possibilities.
Regarding the shopping mall analogy...............How does any empirical evidence demonstrate a metaphysical truth??
Instead of giving positive evidence for God's existence, you have merely inferred something. But that doesnt follow. Why not claim aliens, or some other alternative answer?
How is it that you can automatically apply this to "God did it"?
Perhaps what you perceive as "order" in the universe is inherent in matter.
Perhaps what you see is only "apparent order", but is just the result of mechanical processes.
Furthermore, even if one assents to a belief in some kind of "designer", this is no way enables us to know what kind of god it is. No attributes or characteristics are discernable from some supposed "order".
sincerely, jim
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Paidon,
If you have proof of a supernatural creation, than you have proof God exists.
But i dont think thats the case. The problem is with premise 1.
The astrophysicists and physicists that i talk to at school seem to believe that the matter was in a different form called dark matter. I have seen more and more writing on this, as it becomes more prevalent in discoveries and theories, etc.
So the idea is that this particulary universe is finite, but came from pre-existing forms of some kind,s.a. alternate universe, etc.
In addition, the matter, is created and destroyed in a sense, that it was dark matter, and turned into atoms, etc. So the idea that matter doesnt arise by itself, would be flawed.
I am not a physicist, but this seems to be the popular view among the scientists, which is something akin to: We arent sure, we are still discovering new things everyday, so its hard for anyone to make a dogmatic assertion to the finiteness of the universe, especially one that requires a god to start it.
If you have proof of a supernatural creation, than you have proof God exists.
But i dont think thats the case. The problem is with premise 1.
The astrophysicists and physicists that i talk to at school seem to believe that the matter was in a different form called dark matter. I have seen more and more writing on this, as it becomes more prevalent in discoveries and theories, etc.
So the idea is that this particulary universe is finite, but came from pre-existing forms of some kind,s.a. alternate universe, etc.
In addition, the matter, is created and destroyed in a sense, that it was dark matter, and turned into atoms, etc. So the idea that matter doesnt arise by itself, would be flawed.
I am not a physicist, but this seems to be the popular view among the scientists, which is something akin to: We arent sure, we are still discovering new things everyday, so its hard for anyone to make a dogmatic assertion to the finiteness of the universe, especially one that requires a god to start it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Jim,
As I said, in the thread on the inspiration of scripture, I am not willing to live with infinite skepticism. We make decisions every day (some of them placing at stake life or fortune) based upon information that we consider ourselves certain about, but about which we have less evidence than we have for such matters as the existence of God and the inspiration of the scriptures. A commitment to infinite skepticism, by definition, eschews certainty...but there is nothing rational about it.
As long as we are committed to the proposition that we cannot be certain, we are left with the next best option--a level of confidence so high as to render any doubts irrational. I have had friends who made a sport of thinking of far-fetched alternatives to what everyone knows to be established realities. I suppose there is some fun to had in the exercise, and no limits to the absurdities that can be devised by a clever thinker.
I am not of that stripe, and would rather take matters affecting my eternal destiny more seriously. This leads me to weigh the evidences related to the existence of God and divine revelation as responsibly as I would weigh evidence in any other matter of life-and-death.
As I said, if the evidences for these matters is not deemed sufficient to imbue certainty in my mind, I must then, by the same refusal to let the evidence speak plainly, call everything I have ever learned on any subject, religious or secular into doubt. This may be philosophically possible, but it is not a philosophy that human beings are capable of living by. Apparently, we were not intended to do so.
If this just brings us back to your point that we can never have true certainty, but only faith, I don't object to that formulation. Everything we know is a matter of faith, because we are always trusting something--our senses, our reasoning powers, competent testimony from those we know to be honest, etc. Even the things we are most "certain" about, therefore, are matters of faith--which means that faith and certainty are not opposites. One is simply the highest form of the other.
You raised some question which you probably would like me to answer (unless they were intended rhetorically). You asked:
1. Why not claim aliens, or some other alternative answer?
2. How is it that you can automatically apply this to "God did it"?
3. Perhaps what you perceive as "order" in the universe is inherent in matter.
4. Perhaps what you see is only "apparent order", but is just the result of mechanical processes.
My answers:
1. We are entitled to postulate the mediation of aliens, if that seems to be the direction that the best evidence indicates (I doubt that this is the case). But any such aliens (meaning beings from other planetary systems) would themselves be a part of the cosmos, not the creators of the cosmos. Thus we have transported the problem of origins to another planet, but have done nothing toward finding its answer. The creator of the cosmos can not be one of the items within the cosmos.
2. I think I answered this question in my previous post. That a creator of some description exists or existed is an unavoidable postulate. Whether this being was or was not the God of the Bible is, as I said there, a separate question--but it is one that can be resolved satisfactorily by the same evidential inquiry as any other. In my opinion, anyone who does not believe that the Bible is a revelation from the Creator has either done too little research into the available evidence or else has not assessed the evidence with the same objectivity that one brings to other inquiries, where no conclusion is preferred.
3. I am not a scientist, but I believe that the second law of thermodynamics rules out the likelihood that order is the inherent state of matter. The natural tendency, so far as it has been observed, is toward disorder.
4. It is possible that, if we found an Indian arrowhead, shaped by the blows of a crude, flint mallot, we could insist that this particular stone had been thus shaped by natural forces, and was not designed for any purpose. However, none of us would be quite that stupid. We have all seen stones that have been shaped by natural forces. They do not bear the marks of human workmanship and design that characterizes an arrowhead. If we are not stupid enough to miss the obvious evidence of design in such a crude artifact, it seems less than sane for any of us to look at a living cell and fail to see its designed orderliness.
Once again, infinite skepticism is a faddish philosophy, but not one that anyone has ever consistently lived by. If it isn't a philosophy to live by, it can hardly be one that we would wish to die by. It isn''t my mission to make everyone believe as I believe. It is my desire to explain why they should do so. It remains a matter of free choice whether one will be reasonable or obstinate in the face of evidence.
The BIble, which I have come to trust thoroughly, has informed me that I should be prepared to encounter those who say "there is no God," and how to assess them (Psalm 14:1). It also says that such people are "without excuse" (Rom.1:20), which I could have reasonably deduced, even without being told.
As I said, in the thread on the inspiration of scripture, I am not willing to live with infinite skepticism. We make decisions every day (some of them placing at stake life or fortune) based upon information that we consider ourselves certain about, but about which we have less evidence than we have for such matters as the existence of God and the inspiration of the scriptures. A commitment to infinite skepticism, by definition, eschews certainty...but there is nothing rational about it.
As long as we are committed to the proposition that we cannot be certain, we are left with the next best option--a level of confidence so high as to render any doubts irrational. I have had friends who made a sport of thinking of far-fetched alternatives to what everyone knows to be established realities. I suppose there is some fun to had in the exercise, and no limits to the absurdities that can be devised by a clever thinker.
I am not of that stripe, and would rather take matters affecting my eternal destiny more seriously. This leads me to weigh the evidences related to the existence of God and divine revelation as responsibly as I would weigh evidence in any other matter of life-and-death.
As I said, if the evidences for these matters is not deemed sufficient to imbue certainty in my mind, I must then, by the same refusal to let the evidence speak plainly, call everything I have ever learned on any subject, religious or secular into doubt. This may be philosophically possible, but it is not a philosophy that human beings are capable of living by. Apparently, we were not intended to do so.
If this just brings us back to your point that we can never have true certainty, but only faith, I don't object to that formulation. Everything we know is a matter of faith, because we are always trusting something--our senses, our reasoning powers, competent testimony from those we know to be honest, etc. Even the things we are most "certain" about, therefore, are matters of faith--which means that faith and certainty are not opposites. One is simply the highest form of the other.
You raised some question which you probably would like me to answer (unless they were intended rhetorically). You asked:
1. Why not claim aliens, or some other alternative answer?
2. How is it that you can automatically apply this to "God did it"?
3. Perhaps what you perceive as "order" in the universe is inherent in matter.
4. Perhaps what you see is only "apparent order", but is just the result of mechanical processes.
My answers:
1. We are entitled to postulate the mediation of aliens, if that seems to be the direction that the best evidence indicates (I doubt that this is the case). But any such aliens (meaning beings from other planetary systems) would themselves be a part of the cosmos, not the creators of the cosmos. Thus we have transported the problem of origins to another planet, but have done nothing toward finding its answer. The creator of the cosmos can not be one of the items within the cosmos.
2. I think I answered this question in my previous post. That a creator of some description exists or existed is an unavoidable postulate. Whether this being was or was not the God of the Bible is, as I said there, a separate question--but it is one that can be resolved satisfactorily by the same evidential inquiry as any other. In my opinion, anyone who does not believe that the Bible is a revelation from the Creator has either done too little research into the available evidence or else has not assessed the evidence with the same objectivity that one brings to other inquiries, where no conclusion is preferred.
3. I am not a scientist, but I believe that the second law of thermodynamics rules out the likelihood that order is the inherent state of matter. The natural tendency, so far as it has been observed, is toward disorder.
4. It is possible that, if we found an Indian arrowhead, shaped by the blows of a crude, flint mallot, we could insist that this particular stone had been thus shaped by natural forces, and was not designed for any purpose. However, none of us would be quite that stupid. We have all seen stones that have been shaped by natural forces. They do not bear the marks of human workmanship and design that characterizes an arrowhead. If we are not stupid enough to miss the obvious evidence of design in such a crude artifact, it seems less than sane for any of us to look at a living cell and fail to see its designed orderliness.
Once again, infinite skepticism is a faddish philosophy, but not one that anyone has ever consistently lived by. If it isn't a philosophy to live by, it can hardly be one that we would wish to die by. It isn''t my mission to make everyone believe as I believe. It is my desire to explain why they should do so. It remains a matter of free choice whether one will be reasonable or obstinate in the face of evidence.
The BIble, which I have come to trust thoroughly, has informed me that I should be prepared to encounter those who say "there is no God," and how to assess them (Psalm 14:1). It also says that such people are "without excuse" (Rom.1:20), which I could have reasonably deduced, even without being told.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
In my experience, people who are investigating the bible and Christianity from only an intellectual viewpoint (for example, regarding questions of absolute certainty) aren't ready for the kind of answers that the bible and Christianity are meant to provide. Whether Christianity or the bible would have any relevance to a person is largely dependent on how willing they are to ask the REAL hard questions like:
1. Why am I here?
2. Is there a purpose to life? If so, what is it?
3. I know that I'm imperfect, and I want to do something about the pain and suffering that my imperfections have on myself and on others. What can be done?
4. On a more global scale, what can be done about issues like overpopulation, starving people in third-world countries, corrupt governments, etc.?
Only if these kinds of questions have any meaning to a person will they ever have more than an intellectual interest in Christianity or the bible.
Damon
1. Why am I here?
2. Is there a purpose to life? If so, what is it?
3. I know that I'm imperfect, and I want to do something about the pain and suffering that my imperfections have on myself and on others. What can be done?
4. On a more global scale, what can be done about issues like overpopulation, starving people in third-world countries, corrupt governments, etc.?
Only if these kinds of questions have any meaning to a person will they ever have more than an intellectual interest in Christianity or the bible.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
Damon, that is about the craziest thing i've heard yet.
So your saying that the bible and christianity is meant to provide answers for a non-intellectual viewpoint. Isnt the intellect how we determine what is rational and reasonable? Thats what most here have been claiming, that the Bible and Christianity and evidence for God is reasonable and rational.
How do those questions have meaning if they first dont use their intellect?
I dont see how your post even begins to answer the question i posed.
Jim
So your saying that the bible and christianity is meant to provide answers for a non-intellectual viewpoint. Isnt the intellect how we determine what is rational and reasonable? Thats what most here have been claiming, that the Bible and Christianity and evidence for God is reasonable and rational.
How do those questions have meaning if they first dont use their intellect?
I dont see how your post even begins to answer the question i posed.
Jim
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Jim.
The bible and Christianity are meant to provide answers for the common man, not just the ones who understand Kirkegaardian philosophy, for example. Their answers relate more to the heart than the intellect.
And I'm deliberately not involving myself in trying to answer your question. I'm simply stating that if you expect to understand Christianity and the bible, you're asking the wrong question.
Damon
The bible and Christianity are meant to provide answers for the common man, not just the ones who understand Kirkegaardian philosophy, for example. Their answers relate more to the heart than the intellect.
And I'm deliberately not involving myself in trying to answer your question. I'm simply stating that if you expect to understand Christianity and the bible, you're asking the wrong question.
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Anonymous
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm