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 Kind of Evidence Would Prove God?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
does it not occur to anyone that an alien coming to earth and showing it's ability could indeed be our 'god'?

the bible could very well be a documentation of an alien race coming to earth (it clearly says gods in hebrew in some sections. im too tired ATM to find quotes, use google
) helping man evolve and then ruling as the 'God' race (and thus egyptian and similar religions interpretation); YAHWEH could have been their leader or similar, even arrogant enough to try run the planet himself as 'the one true God'. until ''adam and eve'' rebelled in the search for the 'apple' of knowledge?


sorry to just gush with questions, but i'd like more exploration into this idea; if these aliens came back, would we accept them?

as mentioned above human nature is a funny thing.




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Its been tried plenty of times just check out the exodus. 40 years wondering around in the desert were the food of angels "manna" rained from the sky pillars of fires getting water from a rock so on and so forth. If trying to proove the god of the bible by physical evidence hes given it in droves to mankind throughout history.
Im prone to believe that even if the "nonbelievers" demands were met it wouldnt make much of a difference in changing anybodies mind. Of course you here testimonies of god doing just that for people who actually want to find the truth and ask for "signs". They still happen but not always in the way its expected. Gods mind is not mans mind. So if asked for this sincerely unless every specification is met that is asked to a tee it usually falls on deaf ears.

And for anyones thats interested in why plurals are used in reference to god id check this out.
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

You can get a better understanding of the heavenly host. Also that there is only One Triune God spoken about in the bible. Its slightly academic so put your thinking caps on.

PS to not leave on a bad note for anyone seeking him you can pray that they find him.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie
What kind of evidence would prove the existence of God; an eternal omnipotent and omniscient being who ultimately created everything and who exists apart from His creations?

Just wondering.



None.

People suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Jesus Christ preformed countless miracles in front of the Jews and they said He did them by the power of Satan (Pharisees) or by magic (Josephus).



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChickenPie

Originally posted by Sasky

Originally posted by Starbug3MY
The world. Look at the very, very large universe, and the extremely, very small universe and tell me that it was not designed. The order in the universe is proof, because it is not chaotic.

God is not far from us. He loves us and is very near to us. Not some old sky man idea of God.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Starbug3MY]


The universe did not come to be for our own existence rather we evolved to survive in it. As for the the OP's question, well any evidence would convince me.


If a being came to earth and claimed to be God, and then demonstrated that he could bend scientific laws... Would that be adequate proof of God?


Like raising people from the dead, walking on water, or turning water into wine?

Nope, the people still wouldn't believe.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Science Wants Better Understanding of…
1. Ghosts (both photos, multiple independent sightings, and poltergeist events). We know the temperature drops and that its often physical, we know infrared bounces around our environment all the time, because on a day when its 26C its near exactly 300C above absolute zero. If you put you hands in a 326C oven without touching the sides, you would only feel a doubling of the infrared around us. We know that according to the (now almost universally accepted) Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics en.wikipedia.org...
that the act of measurment itself (of all extremely small particles) (like e.g. infrared photons) causes 2 uncertainities (i.e. what is the particles location, and what is its velocity-state of motion) that existed simultanously, to become one or the other at the moment of observation. Because of this we have the Schroders Cat thought experiment en.wikipedia.org...'s_cat Somehow I think costs observe infrared particles, and this observation can be used to malnipulate the infrareds photons, beahaviour, somehow to a point where you get e.g. Colour light, for a ghost photo on old fashioned film (i.e. the negative).
2. Electronic Voice Phenomena en.wikipedia.org...
3. Telepathic communication (in animals or people), Could help us wonder how we might be able to communicate with other spirits, perhaps even Gods directly, or at least sporadically.


That's proof of things existing in the spiritual world.

We call them demons, you call them ghosts.

By the way, when Peter saw Jesus walking to the boat on the water the apostles thought a ghost was approaching them.



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
A vortex opening up in the sky, where a large hand, and large eye appeared, offering us a sign of life, for example, a baby fawn. And It calmly saying, "don't be affraid my children."


Impossible, God the Father has no form, He's a "spirit" as the Bible tells us. His only metaphysical appearing to mankind is Jesus Christ.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


i don't think there is any possible empirical evidence of that nature.

at least not that could exclude any dependency on belief altogether.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ChickenPie
 


No human will ever understand anything god-like.

To start, you and most other people assume "God" is a man when you say "His". This means you also associate it with a human being, which is stupid.

For a human being to know anything about anything god-like, it would be like saying a blade of grass understands why the lawn mower cuts it down every so often.

If god or gods are so damn all-knowing and powerful, then they can only be understood by those among their own rank. You can't have a pea-sized brained creature understanding a more complex one.

Get over the god crap and get on with your life.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Even if God came, smacked the side of their heads himself, and said "I am real, son" some people wouldn't believe.

Oh, and people would try to kill and dissect someone who could bend the assumed laws of nature.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
It would have to take me to a large empty space in the universe and create a planet, teeming with life, from nothing in seven days. Whether or not this being would be the biblical god or not would be irrelevant to me at that point.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by glitchinmymatrix
 


We can and DO know only what God has already revealed about Himself to us through His Word, Prophets, and angels. I don't think I've ever in my life heard or read anywhere where someone stated they knew everything about God.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Maybe what you ought to ask yourself is how much of a lack of evidence does one need to reasonably conclude that there probably isn't any deities anywhere inside or outside the universe?

There is no objective evidence confirming existence of deities. No physical evidence. No logical evidence. In fact, there's just as much evidence for deities as there is for fairies. Nobody believe in fairies nor wants to, yet with the same amount of evidence favoring fairies (none), we find it not only reasonable to believe in deities but unconscionable not to.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
"lack of evidence"

T drummer. sure there is. To me, my grandmother who seen christ, 2,000 years of saints. miracles tested by science. nature. that fact we have male and female, a mind, we have emotions, thurst for justice.

something with a personality made this.


OP, here'sthe deal.

I know he exist from what I have sen in my own life. It takes faith first. This is how padre recieved the stigmata and st gemma the girl in my pic.

the evidence is our faith, through this, and I promise you on my life God watches every second. you will see signs and miracles.

It's where the souls sincerity lies. You want God to be real and believe it, he will show you and teach you about his life and the saints lives and the miracles.

You want God to be false then nothing will ever make sense, nothing can persaude you to his existence.

you make your own choice op.

peace.




[edit on 4-8-2010 by JesusisTruth]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Quinque viae. or the five proofs for the existence of God.If you are serious in your quest then investigate these arguments then let me know.My only question would be how could anyone living in reality question this fact at all.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 4-8-2010 by oliveoil]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
"lack of evidence"

T drummer. sure there is. To me, my grandmother who seen christ, 2,000 years of saints. miracles tested by science. nature. that fact we have male and female, a mind, we have emotions, thurst for justice.

something with a personality made this.


I agree.

That "this" something made is human beings. "This" being religiosity.

Nature is nothing supernatural and the "miracles tested by science" have never revealed anything beyond natural sources within the expected laws of physics.

Male and female are common to reptiles and plants as well as mammals, minds and emotions are common to all non-plant life and thirst for justice is mammalian also. Grandmothers in India have seen Brahma too. So what?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I believe a all of these together would prove what most consider god to exist.

1. Thundering voice

2. ability to be in more than 1 place at a time

3. Ability to change the past , present future,

4 . celestial beings in its ranks

5. read thoughts

6. bend scientific laws

7. produce miracles


The being would in essence be god. After all god is just a concept filled with godly attributes.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Quinque viae. or the five proofs for the existence of God.If you are serious in your quest then investigate these arguments then let me know.


Aquinas' 13th century thinking is quite out of date if you haven't noticed.

Try again



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by oliveoil
Quinque viae. or the five proofs for the existence of God.If you are serious in your quest then investigate these arguments then let me know.


Aquinas' 13th century thinking is quite out of date if you haven't noticed.

Try again


Yea, I guess your right. How silly of me.Perhaps I should feel the same way about Socrates,Plato,Aristotle,ect,ect..

[edit on 4-8-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by oliveoil
Quinque viae. or the five proofs for the existence of God.If you are serious in your quest then investigate these arguments then let me know.


Aquinas' 13th century thinking is quite out of date if you haven't noticed.

Try again


Yea, I guess your right. How silly of me.Perhaps I should feel the same way about Socrates,Plato,Aristotle,ect,ect..

LOL!!!!!

(2nd Line)





posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


1 st argument of Aquinas "The unmoved mover". This states that it is necessary for a first mover put in motion by no other . They call this god. (So all god has to do is move?:hail


This is based on the assumption of a beginning to movement and thus begs the question of a mover because nothing can be moved by itself and without the movement of another . The logic in this is kinda good until you realize the question itself begs the answer and assumes that motion had a beginning.

This is a common flaw in a lot of theories and theological thought. Why must it be assumed there was a beginning? What proof do we have that justifies this stand point on an universal scale?

None. SO the real question here is was there a beginning or not? Not really proof.

2.) The argument of First cause.

This argument states that being as there are no effects that precipitate their causes and that causes cannot be infinite as each cause carries multiple effects and when reduces comes down to a single cause from which all others come from.

Again, this is based on the assumption of a beginning. It also assumes that there cannot be causality on an infinite timescale. How this argument even became popular is beyond me because causality , in principle is infinite and the basis for saying it is not is rather dry. One cause can create many effects and many causes can creates less effects. For example , A thousand glasses poured into a pool but a pool can only be poured once.

Was there a beginning? Again this is the real question. NOt much proof from this guy.

3) The Argument from Contingency:

This states that everything can or cannot be, meaning it didn't exist before and will not exist again.
All I have to say.... E=MC2

4) The argument of Degree
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But 'more' and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."

This is just ughh.!
We call something good so the reference must be god ? I call someone evil does that make god "maximum evil"? Also what is good and bad differs so which moral philosophy is he grading on? This argument is really bad even for his time because it relies on a being to realize moral value and is based on something so abstract that no valid value can be given to.

5) The teleological Argument.
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

The dreaded teleological argument! We see things and they move from state to state , but who can actually say they are driven by their existence to achieve anything whatsoever? What dictates the best result of a super nova missing or hitting the Earth? What is the best result of two asteroids colliding? What was the best result of the pieces of that asteroid plummeting to Earth and killing an infant in its crib? What of anything in the universe that is natural and not living be of designed motive in their actions?


THat is my take on a over-rated theologians popular antics.


After the nonsense and this argument just states what the first 3 do except it has to do with the end. And if we do not know if there was a beginning then how can we know there is an end?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join