Proof for the existence of the Abrahamic god?

[Quintessence]

I have already told you... this thread was made for people to post why they believe what they believe about the biblical god.

While perhaps an unintentional miscommunication on your part, this is definitely not how the opening post strikes me, and is not how it has struck some of our other members either. The opening post asks for proof of the one-god that must fit certain narrow criteria - criteria that, as it happens, are impossible to satisfy given the nature of that god-concept. Usually, if someone is really looking to learn why people believe what they believe, they don't make demands upon the listener. We let them tell their stories as they see fit to tell them, and listen with the intent of understanding their perspective. From there, we can certainly still disagree, but hopefully there's been some mutual learning involved.

I am not trying to insult you, I am simply annoyed because you keep on asking the same question. I did read your last post and it was quite irrelevant.

How is it not relevant? Let's clear this up once and for all - do you or do you not want to limit people's responses based on the (unreasonable) limitations listed in the opening post? If not, then there's been a miscommunication, and you might want to edit your OP (I think you're still within the time window to do this). If you do want to limit responses in this way, what I presented was extremely relevant, because it points out that your request is indeed unreasonable and kind of impossible?

Still haven't answered these, by the way: what is your personal interest in this topic? Are you interested in converting to a classical monotheist religion? Do you have academic interest in theology?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Um. Like the space example, it exist a part from our knowledge.

What is it? After all, this is perhaps the most important unsolved problem in physics. If you know, please share with the class!

In Arostotle day, if you let go of a pencil, it still dropped. We dont need to test it for it to exist.

Yes, but Aristotle didn't ascribe this phenomenon to gravity. It wasn't until ~2000 years later that Newton postulated some mysterious, mystical "force" that caused objects to move. This force, gravity, turns out to fail doubly: the motion of very small systems like photons, electrons, etc., don't follow the "law of gravity" and neither do planets, solar systems, or the universe (where general relativity is required and there is no force of gravity).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you say reality is proof for an intelligent designer, you then have to conclude which one he is.

Why? If I believed in god, and believed that god created the universe, I don't have to connect this creator with Zeus anymore than I do with unicorns or Julius Caesar.

 

[`mud]

Given the total of all beliefs in all of the 'creators',
there still isn't any evidence of heaven.
What proves the existence of heaven, let alone any 'creators' ?
Just muttering out loud again, please forgive !
~
'mud

 

[Sapiens]

Peace be on you.
Intelligent and guided evolution shows there should be Maker.

Really? I think not. That is but a claim without evidence.

Revelation, purity and blessings tells God exists - the God of all humanity and universes.

[/quote[
Revelation, purity and blessings tell nothing what-so-ever. There is no evidence of any kind to support your extraordinary claim(s).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Cliff Notes: The Laws of Physics havent changed in the past 2,000 years.

What is it? After all, this is perhaps the most important unsolved problem in physics. If you know, please share with the class!


Yes, but Aristotle didn't ascribe this phenomenon to gravity. It wasn't until ~2000 years later that Newton postulated some mysterious, mystical "force" that caused objects to move. This force, gravity, turns out to fail doubly: the motion of very small systems like photons, electrons, etc., don't follow the "law of gravity" and neither do planets, solar systems, or the universe (where general relativity is required and there is no force of gravity).

Um. This is simple. Arostotle did not need to know what gravity is for his pencil to drop when let go.

Im very simple. May be long explanations; and, all posts and points are simple.

You dont need to be on, say the moon, for it to exist. We may not have known "and" that does not mean it didnt exist.

We are not the center of the universe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Peace be on you.
Intelligent and guided evolution shows there should be Maker.
Revelation, purity and blessings tells God exists - the God of all humanity and universes.

(Devils Advocate)

Blessings and purity etc doesnt proove god exist. If that be the case, the blessings and protection I receive from my ancestors ans the Spirits I would know instinctly come from the god of abraham.

Its personal interpretation and experience. It means nothing "to the outside world", it means everything to us who take up the beliefs we do.

For example, what you call blessing can be another persons coinsedence.

By what test should I use to conclude whether what you say is true or not?

I cant use your method nor the other persons. I have to use an objective method.

There is none. So, blessings dont prove god exist as droping a pin proves gravity exist.

Half the people I know believe in blessings that doesnt automatically make them think of god of abraham. Yet, I bet you if they droped a pin, no matter the language, explanation, and area, theyd know its gravity.

 

[occams.rzr]

Why? If I believed in god, and believed that god created the universe, I don't have to connect this creator with Zeus anymore than I do with unicorns or Julius Caesar.

The context was the biblical god. I'm talking about for the sake of the argument.

 

[occams.rzr]

While perhaps an unintentional miscommunication on your part, this is definitely not how the opening post strikes me, and is not how it has struck some of our other members either. The opening post asks for proof of the one-god that must fit certain narrow criteria - criteria that, as it happens, are impossible to satisfy given the nature of that god-concept. Usually, if someone is really looking to learn why people believe what they believe, they don't make demands upon the listener. We let them tell their stories as they see fit to tell them, and listen with the intent of understanding their perspective. From there, we can certainly still disagree, but hopefully there's been some mutual learning involved.



How is it not relevant? Let's clear this up once and for all - do you or do you not want to limit people's responses based on the (unreasonable) limitations listed in the opening post? If not, then there's been a miscommunication, and you might want to edit your OP (I think you're still within the time window to do this). If you do want to limit responses in this way, what I presented was extremely relevant, because it points out that your request is indeed unreasonable and kind of impossible?

Still haven't answered these, by the way: what is your personal interest in this topic? Are you interested in converting to a classical monotheist religion? Do you have academic interest in theology?

1. Demands? They are rules to make sure they don't use irrational logic to prove the biblical god.
2. Who says I don't? This particular thread is geared towards something else. Trust me, I've listened to a lot of Christians.
3.Unreasonable? Saying that you do not give me your opinion to prove god is unreasonable, and to not preach and say the Bible is true because it says so? Just give me evidence, that's all I want. For the sake of this thread I want evidence.
4. I have already told you... for the last time, I want to examine the evidence that theists have and see why they believe what they believe (in respect of evidence). No one has attempted to give me any proof except another person on other website which talked about the Law of Entropy and things of that nature. That is what I am looking for. Using evidence to prove god's existence. Without any evidence, it is just a claim in the sea of claims.

 

[occams.rzr]

"In the beginning, the Barber shaved the created from the uncreated through his son, the Razor." - Razorian Testament 1:1

The Razor cannot be refuted or denied. If you do not believe in the Razor, you will go to the abode of the unshaven. If you believe, you will join him in the abode of the shaven. Atheists, you cannot refute him because look around you! His shaved creation is the proof of his existence! You cannot disprove him! Do not reject the Barber Pole on which he died on!

 

[Quintessence]

1. Demands? They are rules to make sure they don't use irrational logic to prove the biblical god.

That's great and all, but it is not fair and strikes me as more than a little disingenuous. If we really want to know what people think, it doesn't make sense to demand that the other person make their response conform to what we want it to look like. Proper anthropologists let the subject tell their stories as they tell them, rather than demand the story conform to their own worldview. Otherwise, they would be guilty of ethnocentrism, as well as academic dishonesty and questionable research ethics. So yeah, I am a bit confused by these demands of yours given they are rather at odds with the objective.

2. Who says I don't? This particular thread is geared towards something else. Trust me, I've listened to a lot of Christians.

I don't think I'd call this kind of deck-rigging "listening," but I'll grant the benefit of the doubt and assume this particular thread might not be a routine behavior.

3.Unreasonable? Saying that you do not give me your opinion to prove god is unreasonable, and to not preach and say the Bible is true because it says so? Just give me evidence, that's all I want. For the sake of this thread I want evidence.

This would be great if the standard of evidence you seem to be demanding wasn't so restraining. If I gather correctly, you're demanding scientific evidence to exclusion of all other types of evidence. This type of evidence simply does not exist. The nature of the one-god makes it inherently beyond the limitations of the sciences to obtain evidence for, which is why you won't find any peer-reviewed articles in the literature talking about evidence for this god. It doesn't exist, and it won't ever exist (aside from pseudoscientific rubbish, I suppose).

4. I have already told you... for the last time, I want to examine the evidence that theists have and see why they believe what they believe (in respect of evidence). No one has attempted to give me any proof except another person on other website which talked about the Law of Entropy and things of that nature.

Again, this would be really great if you let the classical monotheists present what they view as evidence on their own terms instead of demanding it conform to your definition of evidence (which consequently doesn't exist, as said). Maybe try that next time? You'll get more meaningful responses. It's kind of hard for people to attempt to give you something that doesn't exist (aside from pseudoscientific rubbish, which... well... is that really what you want?). How we frame questions to others is so very, very important!

 

[DawudTalut]

1. No anecdotes (personal events)
2. No long commentaries.
3. Use scientific evidence.
4. Preaching is not evidence, but simply restating your claim.
5. No circular logic. (Bible is true because it says so.)

Peace be on you.
The heading of your post is:
Does the Abrahamic god exist?
The simple answer:
The promises which God made with Hazrat Abraham (on whom be peace) were fulfilled, it proves the God he presented, exists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Cliff Notes: The Laws of Physics havent changed in the past 2,000 years.

True. And in modern physics, there is no gravity. The best theory we have that explains why things fall is general relativity, in which we find that it is spacetime curvature. In particle physics, however, there is a special "particle" called the graviton which is used to explain what we used to call gravitation and the processes that can't be explained by gravity.

Um. This is simple. Arostotle did not need to know what gravity is for his pencil to drop when let go.

It's true that Aristotle need not call anything gravity to learn that things fall down. However, why do they do this? You say gravity. Einstein, astrophysics, cosmology, your use of GPS, etc., say that there is no such thing. Rather, matter causes warping or curvature in the "fabric" of spacetime (or its "geometry"). Quantum physicists argue that things don't fall, because it turns out that at the microscopic layer things don't move (or fall) according to the simple, would-be rules that govern what happens to the pencil you drop. When you "let go" of atoms, electrons, photons, positrons, etc., they don't even exist in one place or take one path in a particular direction. Nothing just "falls". Also, if gravity governed how electrons moved, then the gravitational force would cause all electrons in the universe to plunge into the nucleus of atoms almost instantaneously. But gravity doesn't really exist. It's simply something that was posited to explain how things moved that worked for a while because it explains simple still like what happens when you drop a pencil, but it turns out to fail utterly when applied to the basic constituents of all reality (particles/quantum systems) and at the macroscale when it comes to the movement of planets, light from distant stars, etc.

You dont need to be on, say the moon, for it to exist.

Interesting example, considering the answer the eminent physicist Mermin had to Einstein's rhetorical question "is the moon still there when nobody looks?" :
"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 397-408.

We are not the center of the universe.

That's because there isn't really any center to the universe. We are in an unbelievably privileged place in the universe both in terms of space and in terms of time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

True. And in modern physics, there is no gravity. The best theory we have that explains why things fall is general relativity, in which we find that it is spacetime curvature. In particle physics, however, there is a special "particle" called the graviton which is used to explain what we used to call gravitation and the processes that can't be explained by gravity.


It's true that Aristotle need not call anything gravity to learn that things fall down. However, why do they do this? You say gravity. Einstein, astrophysics, cosmology, your use of GPS, etc., say that there is no such thing. Rather, matter causes warping or curvature in the "fabric" of spacetime (or its "geometry"). Quantum physicists argue that things don't fall, because it turns out that at the microscopic layer things don't move (or fall) according to the simple, would-be rules that govern what happens to the pencil you drop. When you "let go" of atoms, electrons, photons, positrons, etc., they don't even exist in one place or take one path in a particular direction. Nothing just "falls". Also, if gravity governed how electrons moved, then the gravitational force would cause all electrons in the universe to plunge into the nucleus of atoms almost instantaneously. But gravity doesn't really exist. It's simply something that was posited to explain how things moved that worked for a while because it explains simple still like what happens when you drop a pencil, but it turns out to fail utterly when applied to the basic constituents of all reality (particles/quantum systems) and at the macroscale when it comes to the movement of planets, light from distant stars, etc.



Interesting example, considering the answer the eminent physicist Mermin had to Einstein's rhetorical question "is the moon still there when nobody looks?" :
"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 397-408.


That's because there isn't really any center to the universe. We are in an unbelievably privileged place in the universe both in terms of space and in terms of time.

Sorry. Not an acadamic in science. Cant even spell, for gosh ....

A pencil will fall 2,000 years ago as it would today. Gravity even exist without our existence.

I dont understand why youre explaining all of this over something simple.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A pencil will fall 2,000 years ago as it would today..

Why? You say gravity. Einstein says spacetime curvature. Susskind et al. say the dynamics of strings. Davies, Smolin, and others argue that the laws of physics actually do change. Perhaps it isn't as simple as you might think, particularly when what it means for something to fall fundamentally changed in the 20th century.

I dont understand why youre explaining all of this over something simple.

Perhaps because neither the founder of the theory of gravity (Newton) found it simple, nor has basically any physicist since this time. Perhaps because what you consider simple is not really as simple as you think: something dropping now as it did thousands of years ago says nothing about gravity, which is a particular explanation for why and what makes it fall, not that it falls.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why? You say gravity. Einstein says spacetime curvature. Susskind et al. say the dynamics of strings. Davies, Smolin, and others argue that the laws of physics actually do change. Perhaps it isn't as simple as you might think, particularly when what it means for something to fall fundamentally changed in the 20th century.


Perhaps because neither the founder of the theory of gravity (Newton) found it simple, nor has basically any physicist since this time. Perhaps because what you consider simple is not really as simple as you think: something dropping now as it did thousands of years ago says nothing about gravity, which is a particular explanation for why and what makes it fall, not that it falls.

Take out the science terms. I have know clue what you are saying. I am simple.

Do you think 2,000 years ago a pencil could float and now, today, they drop?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Take out the science terms.[

Gravity is a science term

Do you think 2,000 years ago a pencil could float and now, today, they drop?

No. They would drop. The issue is whether or not this relates to gravity.

 

[Yerda]

No. They would drop. The issue is whether or not this relates to gravity.

Can't we use the word gravity as a descriptive term for our observation that things fall?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. They would drop. The issue is whether or not this relates to gravity.

Thats not the point of what I said originally:

"Like gravity. I dont need science, experiment, etc to know know it exist."

I dont need science to know if I let go of a pencil, it will fall.

 

[`mud]

Why doesn't Hydrogen and Helium 'fall' ?
~
'mud