There is no proof of God ...

muhammad_isa said:
..but do you?
You are convinced by the evidence .. but you cannot prove that G-d exists.
In fact, I would say that G-d WANTS us to believe without empirical proof.
Click to expand...
I see scripture supports the use of evidence, logic and reason to determine our path in life.

1 Thessalonians 5:21-28 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

There is also ample verses about testing the Prophets, to determine the true and false prophets, how can one test without proofs and evidence?

While searching I found this verse which I have not noticed before.

Jeremiah 28:9 "As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the Lord has truly sent the prophet.”

Interestingly Baha'u'llah said the Baha'i Faith will not be embraced by the Masses until after the Lesser Peace.

Regards Tony
 
Thomas said:
Not necessarily – one might argue that the Platonists, for example, had no 'revelation' on which they based their proofs of the One, other than the human intellect.

But to the point:

Man A: I believe in God.
Man B: I don't.
Man A: The Messengers tell us ...
Man B: As I don't believe in God, therefore it follows that I don't believe in their message. Show me a proof, and your faith is not a proof. You could be deluded.
Click to expand...
That is the choices we all get Thomas.

The proof of Jesus was his person, his life of sacrifice and the Word Christ left that became known as the New Testament Bible.

Man A Embraces the evidences and Proofs left by Jesus.

Man B does not.

Regards Tony

Regards Tony
 
Thomas said:
I know you do, but I'm trying to make it plain that because you believe what you believe, that does not necessarily present itself as a proof to anyone else.

All along you assume a thing to be true if you believe it – it may well be, it might not be, your belief is insufficient proof in itself.

The atheist says – prove your God exists.
My response is – God transcends the world, ergo God can neither be proved nor disproved at the level of the world.

When I say 'at the level of the world' I mean material, physical proof. God can be reasoned intellectually, and those reasons can be disputed, but they can't be disproved, so we're back where we started.
Click to expand...
I see It really depends upon the person Thomas. The entire creation shows is there is a creative force. Trees and plants communicate with each other, everything is in perfect order and we get to see what happens when humanity tips that balance. All these observations of a creative force in the material world are supported by the spiritual scriptures.

John 6:63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life."

Anyway, that's most likely all we can say. I see ample proofs and evidence, others will say it is not proof and evidence.

I would offer there are still people that beleive in a flat earth, so it depends if one wants to look at the evidence in new frames of references.

Regards Tony
 
Thomas said:
... therefore God does not exist.

This statement fails on two points of logic.

The first is that of an Argument from Ignorance.
This is when we illegitimately appeal to ignorance to support a conclusion. It usually takes the following form:
“No one has proven not A, therefore A is true,” or
“No one has proven A, so A is false.”

The fallacy is mistakenly believing something must be false because it has not been proven true, or that something must be true because it has not been proven false.

A secondary flaw is the fallacy of misplacing the burden of proof
Arises when someone is misled into thinking they have to prove a claim (eg that God exists), when their opponent should be proving his claim (that God does not).

The point here is who is making the claim? The claimant, be they theist or atheist, in making a claim, shoulders the burden of proof for their claim.

For example, the person making a positive assertion usually has the burden of proof (e.g. the theist who asserts God’s existence). Once the theist presents an argument for God’s existence, the burden of proof is now on the atheist who denies God’s existence. Once the atheist shows what is wrong with the argument or presents a new argument against God’s existence, some or all of the burden shifts back to the theist. And so it continues.
(From the Lucid Philosophy website)

Further discussion of the Burden of Proof here
Click to expand...
Great discussion. But I want to throw out an “evidence” that I’m sure you also use, even though it may bypass some of good logic you posted.
While spiritually processing and writing about some recent personal experiences, this small excerpt seems to provide some evidence for the usefulness of “God,” if not also for God’s existence:

The author of the book chapter we were discussing used the Book of Job as an example of a point she was making.

My understanding of Job was that it was a Koan-like riddle whose answer was not a logically derived thing you could point to, but, rather, was a new, more spiritual, perspective upon which to base one’s faith.

——————-
If Job was helped by that shift in consciousness, attributed to “God” or some “spiritual” stuff, is that not evidence enough?
I suppose it is a functional definition. God is what restored Job’s faith and vigor/vitality once he shifted more to a God/spiritual way of thinking/seeing. If it works, there is something there that works. The God Function?

That’s what counts to me. Proof enough?
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
I see Faith must be based on proof and evidences given of God.
Click to expand...
I regard faith differently:
"Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not." (Hebrews 11:1)

I suggest that if someone asked you for proof and evidence 'given of God', apart from your faith in those things as you see them, they could offer an alternative narrative.
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
That is the choices we all get Thomas.

Man A Embraces the evidences and Proofs left by Jesus.
Man B does not.
Click to expand...
Evidently. My point exactly. It's not a proof as such. Man B would be classed a fool if he denied gravity, or the date of empirical evidence.

For example, I embrace the teachings on the Holy Spirit left by Jesus.
You interpret them quite differently.
Throw in the Muslim who will say we're both wrong and the verses to which I allude speak of the noble Quran.

And so it goes ...
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
I see It really depends upon the person Thomas.
Click to expand...
If God were provable, it would not depend on the person, it would be inescapable.
(As you say, with the proviso that there are people who insist the earth is flat.)

God would need to be subject to the determination of the physical sciences.
If such were so, the entity in question would not be God as theists understand God to be.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
Anyway, that's most likely all we can say. I see ample proofs and evidence, others will say it is not proof and evidence.
Click to expand...
There you go ... at long last.
 
Thomas said:
I know ... but you can't prove that frame is True.
Click to expand...
It is proven to those that accept it. I see the concept reflected in verses such as this.

Revelation 2:17 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it"

So one must receive it, before they can accept it. One must be open to receive the evidence and proofs, before they can be accepted.

This is reflected in many aspects of our lives.

Regards Tony
 
Thomas said:
I know ... but you can't prove that frame is True.
Click to expand...
I embraced the Baha'i Faith by reading the evidence and proofs given in two books both written by William Sears. 'God Loves Laughter" and "Thief in the Night". William Sears provided the evidence and proofs, and that was proof for me.

I offered the same material to my mother who refused to read them, as they were from Satan, they were not proofs for her, she did not receive them.

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
Evidently. My point exactly. It's not a proof as such. Man B would be classed a fool if he denied gravity, or the date of empirical evidence.

For example, I embrace the teachings on the Holy Spirit left by Jesus.
You interpret them quite differently.
Throw in the Muslim who will say we're both wrong and the verses to which I allude speak of the noble Quran.

And so it goes ...
Click to expand...
That is the heart of the issue, subjective choice, but the truth does not change.

Regards Tony
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
I embraced the Baha'i Faith by reading the evidence and proofs given in two books both written by William Sears. 'God Loves Laughter" and "Thief in the Night". William Sears provided the evidence and proofs, and that was proof for me.

I offered the same material to my mother who refused to read them, as they were from Satan, they were not poofs for her, she did not receive them.

Regards Tony
Click to expand...
How did your mother come to the conclusion these two books were from Satan?
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
How did your mother come to the conclusion these two books were from Satan?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately my mother is no longer here to answer that question.

My mother was a born again Christian,the doctrine of no other Name was strong with her. As it was with my two sisters, the eldest has also passed on, the younger sister also strong in the doctrine of no other Name.

Regards Tony
 
otherbrother said:
Great discussion. But I want to throw out an “evidence” that I’m sure you also use, even though it may bypass some of good logic you posted.
While spiritually processing and writing about some recent personal experiences, this small excerpt seems to provide some evidence for the usefulness of “God,” if not also for God’s existence:

The author of the book chapter we were discussing used the Book of Job as an example of a point she was making.

My understanding of Job was that it was a Koan-like riddle whose answer was not a logically derived thing you could point to, but, rather, was a new, more spiritual, perspective upon which to base one’s faith.

——————-
If Job was helped by that shift in consciousness, attributed to “God” or some “spiritual” stuff, is that not evidence enough?
I suppose it is a functional definition. God is what restored Job’s faith and vigor/vitality once he shifted more to a God/spiritual way of thinking/seeing. If it works, there is something there that works. The God Function?

That’s what counts to me. Proof enough?
Click to expand...
I said “functional definition “. The term I was looking for was “operational definition.”
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
That is the heart of the issue, subjective choice, but the truth does not change.
Click to expand...
But from the human viewpoint there are different 'truths' and sometimes radically and fundamentally different – indeed opposed.

The Jews see one, we see another, Islam sees a third, and you a fourth ... and they're not the same, but they address the same reality, and of course each insists s/he has the right view of of it ...

That's why I tend towards the Traditionalists, to look to what is right in the other tradition, rather than what is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top