Can God be proven to exist?

firedragon said:

Maybe this may not come as a high level discussion, but I just wish to know some views on "Can God be proven to exist". I am a theist, and I do personally believe that this proving God exists thing can never be done. I also believe that various people have varying concepts of God and most of us judge by our personal standards.

1. But as an Atheist, what would you think is evidence of a God to exist?
2. Also, as a theist, what would you accept as evidence?
3. And if you have the patience to write a little more, what is the concept of God you have in your mind?

Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

Perhaps God may be proven to exist...but not by me. Why?

Probably because "God" (the concept) seems to be a matter of trust and faith...weighing the evidence one accepts personally, and going with the probabilities. If there is even a tenth of a tenth of a hundredth of a percent chance (and you can add any numbers to that you like) that there might be another explanation for something, then the concept 'God' has not been proven.

Or disproved.

It's all about what the individual accepts as a basis for belief.

MOST of the avowed atheists I have met have been fairly honest in this; when asked what sort of evidence would be required to prove to them that 'God is,' they say 'I don't know,' or 'God would know."

What almost every single one of 'em HAVE said, however, is that a direct appearance of God Himself to them telling them that 'Here I AM," wouldn't do it, even if it really WAS God Himself showing up. Why?

Because God wouldn't be able to prove to said atheist that He wasn't a hallucination. Even if He wasn't.

Therefore, say those atheists, they'd go with the hallucination explanation.

Now *I* think that's faith, right there, but I know I'll get some arguments about that one.

JesusKnowsYou said:

The confirming witness of the Holy Spirit can be manifested in many ways.

It could be as simple and personal as the "still small voice" that pierces someone to their center or it could be manifested like on the Day of Pentecost described in Acts 2 as a "rushing mighty wind" and people speaking with "cloven tongues like as of fire".

It depends on the individual's level of faith and understanding as well as on the will of God.

Click to expand...

Brother. I respect that. But that is not evidence bro.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Immanent and pantheistic gods always struck me as excuse-making: they seem to be for people who recognize that belief in God isn't well-founded but want to believe in God anyhow.

But how would "the immanent God" be distinguished from no God at all? What implications are there in saying that God permeates the universe? How would a universe with an immanent god look different from one with no gods?

Click to expand...

Good point. But its not true that the Immanence theory is only an excuse, it could have been, but maybe not because this theory existed for a long time. And if the Hindu scripture is actually datable to some 3000 BC, it may have preexisted the Old Testament.

But the question is, what is the evidence! And of course, what would suffice as evidence!

dianaiad said:

Perhaps God may be proven to exist...but not by me. Why?

Probably because "God" (the concept) seems to be a matter of trust and faith...weighing the evidence one accepts personally, and going with the probabilities. If there is even a tenth of a tenth of a hundredth of a percent chance (and you can add any numbers to that you like) that there might be another explanation for something, then the concept 'God' has not been proven.

Or disproved.

It's all about what the individual accepts as a basis for belief.

MOST of the avowed atheists I have met have been fairly honest in this; when asked what sort of evidence would be required to prove to them that 'God is,' they say 'I don't know,' or 'God would know."

Click to expand...

I don't think that approach is particularly honest, since in normal conversations, we deal with practical certainty, not perfect certainty.

There's uncertainty in any statement about the physical world. Someone could ask me "how many supermarkets are there in your town?" and I'd respond with "3," even though I know full well that there's a non-zero chance that the number changed since the last time I checked; I can't rule out the possibility that a gas explosion 5 minutes ago didn't reduce the number of grocery stores by one (as actually happened when I was a kid). I can't rule out the possibility that my entire town has been playing an elaborate joke on me to stop me from recognizing that there's actually a secret supermarket that they've been hiding from me.

It's a but dishonest to make a big deal out of this sort of uncertainty when it comes to gods, but not when it comes to anything else.

What almost every single one of 'em HAVE said, however, is that a direct appearance of God Himself to them telling them that 'Here I AM," wouldn't do it, even if it really WAS God Himself showing up. Why?

Because God wouldn't be able to prove to said atheist that He wasn't a hallucination. Even if He wasn't.

Therefore, say those atheists, they'd go with the hallucination explanation.

Now *I* think that's faith, right there, but I know I'll get some arguments about that one.

Click to expand...

So which part of that mindset are you having trouble with? The acknowledgement that mental illness exists? The acknowledgement that people can be fooled?

Intersubjective verification isn't exactly an unreasonable thing to ask for.

firedragon said:

Good point. But its not true that the Immanence theory is only an excuse, it could have been, but maybe not because this theory existed for a long time. And if the Hindu scripture is actually datable to some 3000 BC, it may have preexisted the Old Testament.

But the question is, what is the evidence! And of course, what would suffice as evidence!

Click to expand...

As I was trying to get at in my last post: what evidence would be needed depends on what the implications of the god(s) would be.

Ask yourself how things would be different if the god existed versus if the god didn't exist. That will point you to the evidence.

... and if there would be no measurable difference between a godless universe and a universe with your god, then there is no evidence that could convince someone that your god is necessarily real.

wizanda said:

Asking for violence, rather than recognize fault is even more barbaric...

The Source of our reality records all deeds, and actions, there is no need to report it; you've already sealed your own chances by your own declarations.

Matthew 12:37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Personally if I blaspheme slightly by accident, as we're in a world full of haters, I'll generally grovel to God very humbly until balance is restored...

Whereas you're like "bring it on, send the power of God against me!!"; thought you said you're were a theist?

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

Really appreciate the contribution. Thanks.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

As I was trying to get at in my last post: what evidence would be needed depends on what the implications of the god(s) would be.

Ask yourself how things would be different if the god existed versus if the god didn't exist. That will point you to the evidence.

... and if there would be no measurable difference between a godless universe and a universe with your god, then there is no evidence that could convince someone that your god is necessarily real.

Click to expand...

Thus, what would you consider as evidence brother?

firedragon said:

Maybe this may not come as a high level discussion, but I just wish to know some views on "Can God be proven to exist". I am a theist, and I do personally believe that this proving God exists thing can never be done. I also believe that various people have varying concepts of God and most of us judge by our personal standards.

1. But as an Atheist, what would you think is evidence of a God to exist?
2. Also, as a theist, what would you accept as evidence?
3. And if you have the patience to write a little more, what is the concept of God you have in your mind?

Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

First I would need to hear the definition of this proposed god. Then I would need objective verifiable evidence... just like I require for any other fantastical claim. What I would not consider to be acceptable evidence is anything written in an old book or people's personal experiences.

QuestioningMind said:

First I would need to hear the definition of this proposed god. Then I would need objective verifiable evidence... just like I require for any other fantastical claim. What I would not consider to be acceptable evidence is anything written in an old book or people's personal experiences.

Click to expand...

As I asked another gentleman here, how about the immanent God? What evidence do you think you would accept?

firedragon said:

So brother, what would suffice as an "Objective evidence"?

Click to expand...

Well now you've put your finger on it. In science, objective evidence requires physical observations that are reproducible. This means consistent observations by different people, at different times and places, and ideally using different techniques. However the big problem with this for showing evidence of God is that as soon as you have observations of nature that are reproducible in this way, science will categorise them as natural phenomena and not supernatural at all!

So it seems to me the only way to get objective evidence would not be this way but by means of some unarguable miracle. In other words, some singular event, completely contrary to nature as we know it and witnessed by so many that it could not be dismissed as mass hallucination or something.

firedragon said:

As I asked another gentleman here, how about the immanent God? What evidence do you think you would accept?

Click to expand...

This is the definition I found:

The doctrine or theory of immanence holds that the divine encompasses or is manifested in the material world. ... Immanence is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, pandeistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the mundane.

First I would need objective verifiable evidence that this 'spiritual world' of which you speak actually exists. Care to provide any?

firedragon said:

Thus, what would you consider as evidence brother?

Click to expand...

Again: depends on the claim.

If your claim is just that you're going to call the universe "God," then evidence isn't really the issue.

No one can and no one may save you. I can take you there but you must walk the path on your own. Until we stop being bigoted and ignorant over anger we will continue to suffer. Thus God isnt the ignorant one (of our suffering), thus no problem of evil.

firedragon said:

Brother. I respect that. But that is not evidence bro.

Click to expand...

I understand that this is a common position, but I believe it is naive.

There are so many things we have discovered in the universe that cannot be perceived by our physical senses.

We would need to use a tool of some kind in order to detect and measure these previously unknown things.

This same concept can be applied to the use of the Holy Spirit of God.

If you don't use it, you can never detect spiritual things.

The confirmation that I received from the Holy Spirit was evidence enough for me. Beyond even the witness of sight.

There is nothing on Earth that could get me to deny what the Holy Spirit has confirmed to me.

JesusKnowsYou said:

I understand that this is a common position, but I believe it is naive.

There are so many things we have discovered in the universe that cannot be perceived by our physical senses.

We would need to use a tool of some kind in order to detect and measure these previously unknown things.

This same concept can be applied to the use of the Holy Spirit of God.

If you don't use it, you can never detect spiritual things.

The confirmation that I received from the Holy Spirit was evidence enough for me. Beyond even the witness of sight.

There is nothing on Earth that could get me to deny what the Holy Spirit has confirmed to me.

Click to expand...

Again, not evidence. If you think this is good enough evidence to an atheist, you are highly mistaken. I understand you, but thats not what I am asking for.

QuestioningMind said:

This is the definition I found:

The doctrine or theory of immanence holds that the divine encompasses or is manifested in the material world. ... Immanence is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, pandeistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the mundane.

First I would need objective verifiable evidence that this 'spiritual world' of which you speak actually exists. Care to provide any?

Click to expand...

The question is, what evidence would suffice to you?

exchemist said:

Well now you've put your finger on it. In science, objective evidence requires physical observations that are reproducible. This means consistent observations by different people, at different times and places, and ideally using different techniques. However the big problem with this for showing evidence of God is that as soon as you have observations of nature that are reproducible in this way, science will categorise them as natural phenomena and not supernatural at all!

So it seems to me the only way to get objective evidence would not be this way but by means of some unarguable miracle. In other words, some singular event, completely contrary to nature as we know it and witnessed by so many that it could not be dismissed as mass hallucination or something.

Click to expand...

I agree.

firedragon said:

Maybe this may not come as a high level discussion, but I just wish to know some views on "Can God be proven to exist". I am a theist, and I do personally believe that this proving God exists thing can never be done. I also believe that various people have varying concepts of God and most of us judge by our personal standards.

1. But as an Atheist, what would you think is evidence of a God to exist?
2. Also, as a theist, what would you accept as evidence?
3. And if you have the patience to write a little more, what is the concept of God you have in your mind?

Thank you in advance.

Click to expand...

For literalists people, if God keeps sending prophets and performs the miracls, such as resurrecting dead people. Grandfather, grandmather died 20 years ago, God sends a prophet and resurrects the dead in front of us, for every generation, not just what literalists say happend thousands years ago. You know what I mean?

InvestigateTruth said:

For literalists people, if God keeps sending prophets and performs the miracls, such as resurrecting dead people. Grandfather, grandmather died 20 years ago, God sends a prophet and resurrects the dead in front of us, for every generation, not just what literalists say happend thousands years ago. You know what I mean?

Click to expand...

How would we know that God was doing it?

If God is on the table as a possibility, why not mischievous spirits? Wizards - i.e. humans with magical powers? Time travel?

firedragon said:

Again, not evidence. If you think this is good enough evidence to an atheist, you are highly mistaken. I understand you, but thats not what I am asking for.

Click to expand...

It is evidence. It's just not evidence they will recognize.

You can never prove the spectrum of light to a blind man because he will lack the basic tool of sight to perceive your evidence.

That doesn't mean you don't have the evidence.