Explain to me why god is real using facts

[The Anointed]

Word games and reinterpreting holy books after the fact is not very impressive.

Now if a holy book was accurate enough to inspire a discovery beforehand that would be something. You still have no facts supporting your beliefs.

So say the atheists, who believe that a universe of mindless matter created this cosmos in a mere 13.8 billion years. What a laugh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So say the atheists, who believe that a universe of mindless matter created this cosmos in a mere 13.8 billion years. What a laugh.

Unlike you we have evidence for what we believe. Reinterpreting myths is not evidence. Using old failed arguments is not evidence. Have you noticed that so far each and every theist has absolutely failed to meet the OP's challenge?

 

[The Anointed]

Unlike you we have evidence for what we believe. Reinterpreting myths is not evidence. Using old failed arguments is not evidence. Have you noticed that so far each and every theist has absolutely failed to meet the OP's challenge?

Reveal your evidence, when and how did the first life form appear on earth, and is this universe which blasted out some 13.8 billion years ago, the first and only universe ever to have evolved.

Remembering that the Space station which evolved from the wheel, had a creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reveal your evidence, when and how did the first life form appear on earth, and is this universe which blasted out some 13.8 billion years ago, the first and only universe ever to have evolved.

Remembering that the Space station which evolved from the wheel, had a creator.

Not now. You are the one making a God claim. Right now the burden of proof is upon you. Shifting the burden of proof is a way of admitting that you are wrong. Do you want to do that? We do have evidence for our beliefs. You, not so much.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry but the existence or non-existence of your God or any god is meaningless, life goes on either way.

Meaningless to you.
Yes, life goes on either way, unfortunately.

 

[ratiocinator]

I would ask who says the Messages from God are not clear?

I do, for one. I see no messages from any god(s) just lot of people who claim to know about messages from god(s), who disagree with each other and offer no objective evidence or sound reasoning to support their various claims.

Anybody who claims there are clear messages from a god, needs to explain why there are so many contradictory religions, sects, and cults.

It is this world that is the veil and we are given free choice between living for the world or living for the spirit.

It can't be a free choice if there is no clear message.

 

[Trailblazer]

Anybody who claims there are clear messages from a god, needs to explain why there are so many contradictory religions, sects, and cults.

Because humans changed and in many cases corrupted the original messages that came from God.

 

[ratiocinator]

Exist as what? What does it mean to "exist outside of people's minds"? How does a "given god" (and idea given by one human mind, to another human mind) exist "outside of people's human mind"? Existence, itself, is a cognitive experience occurring WITHIN THE HUMAN MIND. And "objective existence" is an ideal that no human can objectively experience, like perfection, infinity, or omniscience.

That's just trying to muddy the waters. We don't generally have arguments about whether cats exist or the Empire State Building. Why? Because they (potentially) appear in everybody's "subjective" experience. There is actually a qualitative difference between the "objective world" and our internal, subjective world of thoughts and feelings.

We also tend to accept things like atoms and electromagnetic radiation because we accept that all the people who study these things have come to the same conclusion. That's why I was talking about intersubjectivity (basically Popper's definition of objectivity). If there is no way to conclude that a god exists that is independent of the individual making the assessment, then it either doesn't exist objectively or it might as well not exist objectively.

I have no problem if believers think that god is just "an idea given by one human mind, to another human mind", but many go way beyond that. If (for example) a god did create the universe (a common theist claim) then it isn't just "an idea given by one human mind, to another human mind", is it? Likewise if it literally came to live on earth as a man. Those are objective claims.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because humans changed and in many cases corrupted the original messages that came from God.

So why would a god allow that to happen? Surely any god worthy of the name would be able to make sure that every single individual received its message in a clear and unambiguous way.

 

[The Anointed]

That's just trying to muddy the waters. We don't generally have arguments about whether cats exist or the Empire State Building. Why? Because they (potentially) appear in everybody's "subjective" experience. There is actually a qualitative difference between the "objective world" and our internal, subjective world of thoughts and feelings.

We also tend to accept things like atoms and electromagnetic radiation because we accept that all the people who study these things have come to the same conclusion. That's why I was talking about intersubjectivity (basically Popper's definition of objectivity). If there is no way to conclude that a god exists that is independent of the individual making the assessment, then it either doesn't exist objectively or it might as well not exist objectively.

I have no problem if believers think that god is just "an idea given by one human mind, to another human mind", but many go way beyond that. If (for example) a god did create the universe (a common theist claim) then it isn't just "an idea given by one human mind, to another human mind", is it? Likewise if it literally came to live on earth as a man. Those are objective claims.

Can you prove that energy has a beginning and an end? Can you prove that the electromagnetic energy that was spewed out in the trillions of trillions of degree in the event that is called the Big Bang has not become all that exists?

 

[ratiocinator]

Can you prove that energy has a beginning and an end?

You can't prove anything about science - that's not how it works. As I think I explained before, energy isn't stuff; there has to be something that has energy. The conservation of energy is due to the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics. It's also possible that the universe's total energy is zero: Zero-energy universe.

Can you prove that the electromagnetic energy that was spewed out in the trillions of trillions of degree in the event that is called the Big Bang has not become all that exists?

Electromagnetism didn't exist as a separate force until about 10^-12 s after the big bang, when if split from the weak nuclear force: Electroweak symmetry breaking

 

[The Anointed]

You can't prove anything about science - that's not how it works. As I think I explained before, energy isn't stuff; there has to be something that has energy. The conservation of energy is due to the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics. It's also possible that the universe's total energy is zero: Zero-energy universe.

Electromagnetism didn't exist as a separate force until about 10^-12 s after the big bang, when if split from the weak nuclear force: Electroweak symmetry breaking

How can it be possible that the universe's energy is zero, when the entire universe is nothing but energy

Nothing Is Solid & Everything Is Energy – Scientists Explain The World of Quantum Physics*​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Reveal your evidence, when and how did the first life form appear on earth, and is this universe which blasted out some 13.8 billion years ago, the first and only universe ever to have evolved.

Remembering that the Space station which evolved from the wheel, had a creator.

Announted. Just becauae you see connections in the universe does not make it fact. Someone else seeing the logic nature stripped of any religious thought (which not all are atheist who do this, mind you) does not invidate nor make their discovery of the fact (rather than belief) moral or immoral.

Saying atheists are blind doesn't mean you have a fact. Facts exist independent of your belief. Facts cannot be right or wrong. I can careless about evidence since god is not a fact but a belief; but, if you claim something is fact you have more work to do. You must give evidence for such a nature as god. You can't claim something is a fact but can't directly show how you came to that conclusion.

Another thing. When you see the beauty of the universe, by what fact leads you to believe something is intelligent independent of your belief system?

Explain god outside your belief system. If god is fact, it has no bias. It just is.

 

[ratiocinator]

How can it be possible that the universe's energy is zero, when the entire universe is nothing but energy

I gave you the link - gravitational energy can be considered as negative. The universe isn't "nothing but energy" - that's nonsense. As I said before, energy isn't stuff - nothing at all is energy, let alone everything. Things have energy. (And before you quote E = mc^2, the m is for mass, not matter - mass isn't stuff either, again things have mass they can't be mass.)

See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

Nothing Is Solid & Everything Is Energy – Scientists Explain The World of Quantum Physics*

That's the problem with getting your physics from a tax advisor.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why does an atheist want to know anything about God? Atheists don't believe God(s) exist.

Good question, because all Atheists wants is an argument and that's all, so why waste your time. If he really wants evidence of God, as there are many place on the internet to look up for the existence of God.
Look up what the archaeologist and paleontologist have found, there lays the proof in their findings.

 

[PureX]

That's just trying to muddy the waters. We don't generally have arguments about whether cats exist or the Empire State Building. Why? Because they (potentially) appear in everybody's "subjective" experience. There is actually a qualitative difference between the "objective world" and our internal, subjective world of thoughts and feelings.

Our thoughts and feelings still 'exist' just as surely as cats and building do. They just don't exist materially. There is far more to reality than it's material expression. And all the meaning, and mystery, and purpose, are not going to be found in the material.

We also tend to accept things like atoms and electromagnetic radiation because we accept that all the people who study these things have come to the same conclusion. That's why I was talking about intersubjectivity (basically Popper's definition of objectivity). If there is no way to conclude that a god exists that is independent of the individual making the assessment, then it either doesn't exist objectively or it might as well not exist objectively.

There is no question that God exists. The questions are in what ways, and to what end does God exist? Because existence is not limited to and defined by physical matter.

I have no problem if believers think that god is just "an idea given by one human mind, to another human mind", but many go way beyond that. If (for example) a god did create the universe (a common theist claim) then it isn't just "an idea given by one human mind, to another human mind", is it? Likewise if it literally came to live on earth as a man. Those are objective claims.

Well, you are not the decider for anyone but yourself what God is or is not. And once you realize this, you won't be bothered so much by what other people choose to believe God is or isn't. Also, I think you really need to understand that existence is not limited to or defined by physical matter. That's an 'inhuman' perspective that can only result in harmful self-negation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because humans changed and in many cases corrupted the original messages that came from God.

You do realize that you just made two claims that you need to provide evidence for. You need to show that humans changed the original message. And you need to show that the original message was from God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good question, because all Atheists wants is an argument and that's all, so why waste your time. If he really wants evidence of God, as there are many place on the internet to look up for the existence of God.
Look up what the archaeologist and paleontologist have found, there lays the proof in their findings.

No, we merely want theists to support their claims. We can support ours. Why do theists run away when they need to provide the burden of proof?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good question, because all Atheists wants is an argument and that's all, so why waste your time. If he really wants evidence of God, as there are many place on the internet to look up for the existence of God.
Look up what the archaeologist and paleontologist have found, there lays the proof in their findings.

I laughed because of the generalization. Not all of us are like that.

I'm not that big on needing proof for god; but, how does archaeologist and paleontologist prove god?

Wouldn't it be fine if theists accept god exist by faith and belief without need to find evidence in a non-evidence structured belief system?​

I know the first verse in Hebrews mentions faith is belief without seeing. Atheists, Theists, Buddhist, Pantheists as archaeologists and paleontologists try to prove god for centuries. Only on RF do I know atheists who debate about god. A lot of us in the real world generally don't care. Yet, you see christian t.v., christian magazines, radio, online, RF, etc try to prove and find existence of god as if an invisible (or saying there is evidence like you just died) being will show up in visible things.

The nature of god just doesn't work like christians (who care about physical proof) and atheists (who care about evidence) want it to.

Atheist make up such a small percentage of the world that generalizations are easy but not accurate at all.

I know (assuming) you may just look over this; however, my questions are genuine regardless to any who wants to answer these I'd appreciate it.

How do archaeologist and paleontologist prove evidence of god?
​

This "evidence" needs to be something universal. John Doe in Austria, Barbara in Japan, and Kathleen in the U.S. regardless our religions or lack thereof should look at these evidences and say "there is a god" without needing to believe anything about him.

Why do you need to have physical evidence for the existence of god?

What's the use of all these t.v. shows and movies by christians try to prove an invisible god? To me it seems like trying to prove the other wrong. Why?​

We know christ did exist. I personally don't deny that. I also know archaeologist and paleontologist and other history proves people believe in gods and what they say about god.

However, it depends on the person as to whether these things are taken as history or do they put meaning and spiritual value to them. It's not an atheist thing; we aren't blind.

Here is a good site about proving the existence of god. Atheist probably created this site too since it isn't bias to whom a person believes in the workfield.

What Archaeology Is Telling Us About the Real Jesus

How does paleontology and archaeology prove an invisible being?

It proves jesus christ exist but how does it prove his father?

I'm intentionally repeating the questions.

Edit Even another probably even more complex question. How do these things prove jesus is god?

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no question that God exists. The questions are in what ways, and to what end does God exist? Because existence is not limited to and defined by physical matter.

Many, many mutually contradictory gods exist as ideas in people's minds. Either one or more of them exist independently of human minds or not. That must be either true or false.

Either a believer thinks that her god(s) are just ideas or have an existence independently of anybody's beliefs or she doesn't.