It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

what proof is there that 'god' exists?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Marko,
Unfortunately logic doesn't work that way. I mean, there is no proof that mermaids don't exist, however that doesn't mean that they certainly do. Logically, nothing that we can't observe in some way or another exists. I don't necessarily believe it, but there is no way to prove otherwise.




OK, the "mermaid" example you gave needs to be changed.
Here's is PROOF that mermaids DO exsist.

cgi.ebay.com...

You can buy this on Ebay.....

So,..... what else ya got?
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

I couldn't resist throwing a little humor into the mix.


You gotta' love timing like that!

Have a good one man!
Catch ya' again soon.




posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
There is no proof either way for the existence of god/gods. Even me - a complete and total atheist concedes that there is a possibility that a christian god exists. Although I also concede that Allah might be the one OR Horus/ Satan/ Ganesh might be possibilities. I also know that believers know that there is a possibility that they might be WRONG although their beliefs say otherwise.
BUT just as these are a possibility - the PROBABILITY of these are the main argument. How probable is it that you would win the lotto every week for a year? A possibility? YES, Probability? NO.

So my take on it is that god/ gods, whatever are highly highly improbable.
So who needs them? not me anyway.


G



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   
marko1970,
you use the fact that our planet is perfectly placed in the galazy for life as proof of god, hate to tell you this but that doesnt mean we were placed here by seom magical being.
The universe is huge, so therefore chances are there are planets that are perfect for life. Being perfect for life means that life might just come along like we did.

Also you say there must have been soemthing at the beginning to craete the universe, but that therefore means there must have been something before god to create him, youve created your own paradox.

Lastly you say that the fact we are intelligent leans towards intelligetn design. We evolved that way, other animals didnt, its all luck. There are other inteligent animals on this planet nto as smart as us but intelligent all the same.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
marko1970,
you use the fact that our planet is perfectly placed in the galazy for life as proof of god, hate to tell you this but that doesnt mean we were placed here by seom magical being.
The universe is huge, so therefore chances are there are planets that are perfect for life. Being perfect for life means that life might just come along like we did.

Also you say there must have been soemthing at the beginning to craete the universe, but that therefore means there must have been something before god to create him, youve created your own paradox.

Lastly you say that the fact we are intelligent leans towards intelligetn design. We evolved that way, other animals didnt, its all luck. There are other inteligent animals on this planet nto as smart as us but intelligent all the same.



Actually, the example of the planet being placed just the right distance from the sun, as well as what part of the galaxy we're in, wasn't given as "absolute proof"... I said it leans more towards the side of a creator than by chance.

Also, God has always been.. always will be..... So there was nothing to create him. The fact that there is anything at all should make you think about where it all came from.
If there were no God, there would be nothing.... No Universe, no planets, no life, no atoms, no subatomic particles...... just "nothing".....
(That's a wierd thing to think about)

But to think it's just "luck" that everything is as it is, & that Humans were the only species to advance as we did through evolution, is just bizarre.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
The planet being in the best place to make life isnt proof of intelligent design, it just rpoves our planet is ideal for life, there are a billion other planets and some of them may also have life on, its simple chance and if one does then it completly destroyes your argument. I have no proof but there is none to the contary.

Just saying that god always was gets to the same paradox and conventonal theory of what was before. By saying god always was is simple stupid here is always something before there cannot have just been at the start of everythign a powerful omnicient inelligent being it just doesnt make sense.

And to use luck as how are humans intellignet well we needed to be, when we came down from the trees we leearned to work together whihc relied on communication. This advacned along with our brains to what we have today. We are not any better than other animals, we are still driven by our most primal insticts, eat, sleep, procreate, we just kid ourself its something more.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
The planet being in the best place to make life isnt proof of intelligent design, it just rpoves our planet is ideal for life, there are a billion other planets and some of them may also have life on, its simple chance and if one does then it completly destroyes your argument. I have no proof but there is none to the contary.

Just saying that god always was gets to the same paradox and conventonal theory of what was before. By saying god always was is simple stupid here is always something before there cannot have just been at the start of everythign a powerful omnicient inelligent being it just doesnt make sense.

And to use luck as how are humans intellignet well we needed to be, when we came down from the trees we leearned to work together whihc relied on communication. This advacned along with our brains to what we have today. We are not any better than other animals, we are still driven by our most primal insticts, eat, sleep, procreate, we just kid ourself its something more.


Again, you are merely interjecting opinion, rather than factual evidence.
Your assumption of evolution, & a "paradox", is pure speculation based on the same ideas as other people who are afraid to admit that we are accountable for our actions & beliefs when we "die".

The challenge still stands.
Can you "PROVE" with FACTS that God doesn't exsist?
I have to say NO.....

Can I PROVE he DOES exsist? Maybe not "completely' to the point that everyone in the world would accept it..... But as I said, there is more evidence that points to the exsistence of God, than the other way around.

YOU might have climbed down from a tree, & you're very welcome to have that opinion of yourself.

I on the other hand, came from a much higher, & more powerful lineage.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Wow Marko.

Keeping in mind that the thread title is "what proof is there that 'god' exists?" then I think it's the duty of those arguing that he does exist to pose evidence.

And, just because Earth is the correct distance from the sun to support our kind of life, doesn't mean that this is the only place that life can exist, and does so by God's will. Imagine a termite colony in your house. To the termites, it may seem as though the house was placed there by God for them to exist, but we know why it was really placed there.

Besides, the only reason we know that life exists on earth is because we're here. For all we know life could exist on every single planet in the Solar system, but we just haven't found it yet. If that happens, then the whole 'Earth is the only inhabitable planet, therefore God gave it to us' argument is out the window.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by marko1970

The challenge still stands.
Can you "PROVE" with FACTS that God doesn't exsist?
I have to say NO.....

Can I PROVE he DOES exsist? Maybe not "completely' to the point that everyone in the world would accept it..... But as I said, there is more evidence that points to the exsistence of God, than the other way around.

What are you on about???? As I and many others have said before - THERE IS NO AND I REPEAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR OR AGAINST THE EXISTANCE OF GOD OR GODS. You can rattle out scripture, opinions of others or whatever, it still makes no difference to the fact that none of this can or cannot be proven. Religion is based on FAITH not FACTS so just as you have faith that god exists I have faith that he doesn't. You cant prove that your right and I'm wrong can you ?


YOU might have climbed down from a tree, & you're very welcome to have that opinion of yourself.

I on the other hand, came from a much higher, & more powerful lineage.

Did you really come from a higher lineage??? Can you PROVE this with FACTS? I have to say no. Also there is more factual evidence for evolution than there is for ID. Check it out sometime you might be surprised.



G



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
To me the littliest things prove to me that God excists, I don't need Him to prove to me, as I can see it everywhere. My signature is one of the littliest things, even a simple way to understand.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Wow Marko.

Keeping in mind that the thread title is "what proof is there that 'god' exists?" then I think it's the duty of those arguing that he does exist to pose evidence.

And, just because Earth is the correct distance from the sun to support our kind of life, doesn't mean that this is the only place that life can exist, and does so by God's will. Imagine a termite colony in your house. To the termites, it may seem as though the house was placed there by God for them to exist, but we know why it was really placed there.

Besides, the only reason we know that life exists on earth is because we're here. For all we know life could exist on every single planet in the Solar system, but we just haven't found it yet. If that happens, then the whole 'Earth is the only inhabitable planet, therefore God gave it to us' argument is out the window.



The thing is, people always want "PROOF" that God exsists.
Although there may not be "proof" enough for everyone to believe, the fact is, there is still more evidence pointing to God's exsistence.

I also have a hard time believeing that EARTH is the ONLY planet in the Universe with life. So I'm not saying WE are the only ones....
I was saying that for US, the placement for OUR exsistence is pretty amazing!

However, it makes me wonder about "other planets" too....... I mean, suppose there IS other life out there.. (which there just about HAS TO BE)...

What is the situation for them?
Did they also experience the influence of Satan? Or did they NOT fall into his lies, & therefore kept a pure life, free of sin?

That's something to ponder......

(and I totally see what you mean by the termite analogy.......)
But....The biggest difference being, we didn't create termites, let alone in our likeness... to love, & eventually reign with us..... LOL!
Termites are unwanted by those of us with houses!!!!!

*cheers*!



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Well, if there is life on other planets, then the bible says they're going to hell for not accepting Jesus Christ right? I mean, if god only sent 1 messiah, then every other planet is out of luck, and will burn for eternity.

Anyway, I'm speaking from the point of view of the termite, believing that some devine being created them, and made the hyouse for them.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Well, if there is life on other planets, then the bible says they're going to hell for not accepting Jesus Christ right? I mean, if god only sent 1 messiah, then every other planet is out of luck, and will burn for eternity.

Anyway, I'm speaking from the point of view of the termite, believing that some devine being created them, and made the hyouse for them.



The topic of life elsewhere......
If there IS life like us on other planets, did they experience the same thing we did?

OR... did they follow God's word, & NOT fall victim to Satan?
If THAT'S the case, there would be no need for a Savior for them.....

I've often wondered about that.

OR YET...... did Jesus have to go to THEIR planets like he did ours?

That's something we probably will never know.... (or at least until we "die" & become spirits ourselves)

I mean, there are numerous galaxies in the universe. & each galaxy contains billions of stars & planets.
It's almost impossible to believe that our planet is the only one with life.
So what is the situation on those other planets if they are out there??

hmmmmmmm.....



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by marko1970
The topic of life elsewhere......
If there IS life like us on other planets, did they experience the same thing we did?

OR YET...... did Jesus have to go to THEIR planets like he did ours?

I mean, there are numerous galaxies in the universe. & each galaxy contains billions of stars & planets.

Interesting Concept Marko1970. Maybe that's why it's taking so long to get to the next Earth, cause of all the other Earth Like Planets that had to endure the same thing, with the One Messiah.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Why does there need to be proof?

Belief in God is not necessarily an act of reason, it is an act of imagination.

I am not saying that God is imaginary, I am only saying that I don't think we can require concrete evidence of something intangible. I do believe in a higher power and am very spiritual. It doesn't matter to me if others aren't, so why do I need to try to prove anything?

If you don't believe in God, then why do you need proof from someone who does?

I think the color black is the best color, I look good in it.
I think that coffee is the world's most perfect drink.
I love my spouse more than anyone in the world.
I think that my spiritual practice benefits me and feels good.

I can't prove any of these things, but for me, they are true. It might just be that none of these statements are true for anyone else. Maybe I am the only one these statements apply to. There is no proof, but then again, none is needed.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
YOu know whta the funniest thing about this thread is????

I (and others) keep getting asked to disprove something when the person asking for proof doesnt give any proof to the contary, quite ironic really.

But here it goes, the main philosphy for god is that he created us in his image, but he also doesnt have a corporial form so he cannot created us in his image, end of. Or how about he is all knowing, well if he was all knowing he would know what will happen next therefore making his amster plan pointless if he were all powerful he could just make the universe perfect and stop the innocent being punished by the sinful.

Oh sorry its a test although an all-knowing god would know what would happen so he deosnt really need to test us does he?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shenroon
YOu know whta the funniest thing about this thread is????

I (and others) keep getting asked to disprove something when the person asking for proof doesnt give any proof to the contary, quite ironic really.

But here it goes, the main philosphy for god is that he created us in his image, but he also doesnt have a corporial form so he cannot created us in his image, end of. Or how about he is all knowing, well if he was all knowing he would know what will happen next therefore making his amster plan pointless if he were all powerful he could just make the universe perfect and stop the innocent being punished by the sinful.

Oh sorry its a test although an all-knowing god would know what would happen so he deosnt really need to test us does he?



Still laughing.......
Some people may understand what I find hilarious, & others will be clueless...... but nonetheless it's pretty darn funny!

Anyway, my particular argument is no different than YOURS. So why is MINE less credible?

I mean after all, You say I can't PROVE God's exsistence..... true.
But you can't DISPROVE it either.

So who is right? And, why is it not OK for me to use the same argument?

Just wondering.

Here's something to think about...... Some will understand it, some will COMPLETELY miss the point.
Adrian Rodgers sums it up well-
"There are NO Atheists in Hell........ Only Believers".

Do you understand?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
What I am trying to say is why do you need proof?

If you don't believe in God, why do you ask others for proof of God's existence?
If you are content with your beliefs, why question others? What do you expect them to say other than all the things you have already heard before?

I can only see a few reasons why one who didn't believe in God would demand proof for the existence of God. Here are the ones of which I can think:

1) You are insecure in your beliefs.

2) You wanted to start an argument, conflict, or debate.

3) You feel superior to those who believe in God, or have some sort of hostility toward them.

Now there are sure to be other reasons that are simply beyond me right now, so if there is another way for me to look at this then please do point it out. I just don't understand the purpose in asking for proof. I could say the same things of those who believe in God and ask for proof that God doesn't exist. I don't see the point.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
What I am trying to say is why do you need proof?

If you don't believe in God, why do you ask others for proof of God's existence?
If you are content with your beliefs, why question others? What do you expect them to say other than all the things you have already heard before?

I can only see a few reasons why one who didn't believe in God would demand proof for the existence of God. Here are the ones of which I can think:

1) You are insecure in your beliefs.

2) You wanted to start an argument, conflict, or debate.

3) You feel superior to those who believe in God, or have some sort of hostility toward them.

Now there are sure to be other reasons that are simply beyond me right now, so if there is another way for me to look at this then please do point it out. I just don't understand the purpose in asking for proof. I could say the same things of those who believe in God and ask for proof that God doesn't exist. I don't see the point.



When people ask me to PROVE God exsists, I really can't. It's a matter of faith, based on experience of being blessed by him that makes me a believer.

So I agree with you.... why ASK people to PROVE either way?
We all have our reasons for our beliefs.

As far as your comment on people who DON'T believe in God getting a superior attitude over those of us that DO believe, I have seen that plenty of times too!

But the funny thins is, I never feel "superior" to the NONbelievers.... I just feel "SORRY" for them! *wink*

But when someone DOES tell me to prove his exsistence, my rebuttle is the same..... "Prove he doesn't".



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
What TYPE of proof are you looking for?

There are three basic categories of proof: logical/mathematical, scientific/empirical, and experiential/subjective. Each of these applies to a different type of proposition, and to try to apply a type of proof to the wrong type of proposition -- or to ask for such proof -- is simply confused.

That's what discussions about "proof of God's existence" come down to -- misconceptions about the nature of God, so that the wrong type of proof is demanded (or offered, or counter-demanded as in "prove He doesn't").

Logical/mathematical proofs use deductive reasoning following from the postulates of a logical system according to accepted rules, to prove that, within that system, the proposition is true. But God's existence is not a proposition within a logical system, rather it is a postulate of theological systems, and so not subject to this kind of proof.

Scientific/empirical proofs use inductive reasoning following from careful observation of parts of the universe. But God is not a part of the universe; He/She/It is either the whole of the universe, which is beyond the scope of science because it cannot be observed, or else He/She/It is the foundation of the universe, and so likewise beyond observation.

Why cannot the whole of the universe be observed? Because the whole of the universe includes the observer, who must be separated from the thing being observed in order for observation to take place. Include the observer with the rest of the mess, and there is no one left to do the observing. So science only deals with parts of the whole, not with the whole of the whole. That is an inherent limitation of scientific method.

When someone demands scientific proof of the existence of God, or offers such proof in the form of miraculous occurrences, what is happening is that the fundamental nature of God is misunderstood. God is being thought of as "something out there," a part of the universe that can be observed (and so empirically proven to exist), which He/She/It is not.

The only type of proof that is applicable to God's existence is the third kind, subjective/experiential proof. The presence of God may be experienced subjectively, even though, since He/She/It isn't "something out there," He/She/It cannot be observed. We cannot separate ourselves from God and look at Him/Her/It. But what we can do is join ourselves with God and experience His/Her/Its transforming presence. That presence is God -- the only reality that He/She/It has for us.

Actually, it isn't necessary to personalize the reality underlying the experience, so even that isn't a proof of God in the personal sense; Hinayana Buddhists do not personalize that reality, for example. But the experience does show certain things about the nature of the cosmos we inhabit, for which "God" is a metaphor.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud


Did you really come from a higher lineage??? Can you PROVE this with FACTS? I have to say no. Also there is more factual evidence for evolution than there is for ID. Check it out sometime you might be surprised.




More evidence for evolution???
THAT is pretty humorous!

Evolution on a microbiological basis, maybe. But Apes to MAN? *buzzer sounds* WRONG..

If we climbed down from trees, such as the comment was made previously in the post, why do we still have Apes????
Why didn't ALL the APES become human?

AND... where are ALL the fossil remains of each "evolutionized" stage of Ape-man? They don't exsist.

As I said, people are free to believe they came from monkeys if they want, but I can't put myself in the same lineage as a creature who STILL drinks his own urine, & eats fleas from his fellow kind.

I'm interested in this "Factual Evidence" of evolution from primate to human.... if you can, let me know where to research this.
Because if I AM WRONG, I'd like to know.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join