Evidence that God Exists

[Valke2]

God planned on sceptics as yourself, a disengenious one at that. You should be aware that the Gospels were written by 4 seperate people in seperate locations none seeing the other, and virtually everyone had written the same account.

The fact is you refuse see, because you could have figured that out by yourself by reading the introduction to each of the Gospels. That makes you disengenious, not the Gospel writers as you claim.

Now this is interesting and something I did not know. Is there evidence to suggest that none of the writers of the Gospels had read any of the other Gospels?

 

[Valke2]

God’s greatest truth and proof was when He came down from Heaven and visited His people. Who would you think Jesus Christ was when He said and did all of these things? Would you say He might be God, after seeing Him nailed to the cross and rise from the dead, listen to Him speak and know Him and See Him ascend into Heaven. Not to mentoin you would be seeing the prophesy being fulfilled foretold in the OT with detail.

A first century Jew would see virtually none of those things that you listed as fullfilling prophecy.

 

[San_Patricio]

I didn’t say proof. I said evidence.

Sorry, “evidence”. Excepting His Incarnation, God is not material, and therefore our science is incapable of discerning Him. It is not through any lack on God’s part that your evidence hasn’t been produced, but limitations on ours.

Ok, if it is not relativistic (subjective), what is the objective basis of your belief that God exists?

As someone said in an earlier post (forgive me, I don’t know who), the fact that we are even able to ask such a question is evidence. What is it about humans that gives us the ability to think outside of our immediate surroundings? Why are we able to concieve such notions as “truth”, “beauty”, “goodness”? The very fact that we are capable of being irrational, subjective & relativistic separates us from nature. If we are not completely a part of the natural world, then by default, there must be something "super"natural to our existence.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Ammonius

As yet, nobody has presented the evidence. Anyone who claims that God does exist as an objective fact has the burden of presenting the evidence that establishes this fact.

No theist I know makes this claim, if by objective fact you mean something that can be proven in a scientific way, such as that water freezes at a certain temperature or boils at a certain temperature.

If you think the existence of God must be proven to the senses, you are certainly barking up the wrong tree. God is not subject to the laws of nature, since He created those laws.

This is the usual fallacy of atheism … that it supposes the burden of proof to be on the theist to prove that God exists, but not on the atheist to prove that God does not exist.

I have stated that repeatedly that God could exist.

Since you have already stated that God could exist, you might want to answer this question:

Why do you think God could exist?

 

[Disciple87]

A first century Jew would see virtually none of those things that you listed as fullfilling prophecy.

I didn’t list everything, just in general to save time at hand.

How do you interpret this?

Isaiah 9:6- “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Hense “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” Hense all of what is written here.

Isaiah 7:14- “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

 

[Equus_Pallidus]

Are you aware that your account of the writing of the Gospels is at odds with views of scholars?

I notice you did not address the question I presented to you.

Yes,yes I am aware they are at odds over their authors, but we do know they are not the same author. 4 different authors.

And it is the height of hypocrisy to say that I didn’t address your question.

Addressing a question as I did by giving you the FACTS that they were written by 4 different people, would mean that there would have to be 4 separate conspiracies to do the same thing, which did address your question implicitly by probabilities.

You have yet to address any of my questions with scholars who would say differently than what I have presented to you. Maybe you should call Dawkins or Harris in to refine your debating skills. Which one of the two do you admire more?

Now if you fail to address the totality of the premises that I have presented to you with some tangible evidence that such conspiracies existed, instead just saying how do you know this then this conversation is over. I know what I know because I am using the “historical method” of evidence.

If we were to treat all history as you do the Gospel accounts, with the “scientific method” we would not know for sure if Napoleon conquered Rome. Everybody could be making stuff up does not address the question.

 

[Valke2]

I didn’t list everything, just in general to save time at hand.

How do you interpret this?

Isaiah 9:6- “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

Hense “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” Hense all of what is written here.

Isaiah 7:14- “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

I’ve been asked that question several times and answered it on these boards. I’ll answer it again after dinner.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Since you have already stated that God could exist, you might want to answer this question:

Why do you think God could exist?

Because there is no way to prove that he does not.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Addressing a question as I did by giving you the FACTS that they were written by 4 different people, would mean that there would have to be 4 separate conspiracies to do the same thing, which did address your question implicitly by probabilities.

Why do you think conspiracies are necessary? The Gospel writers were all members of the Christian community and were writting from common sources including the oral traditions. Why is it suprising that they would have common themes? The early Christians were heavily Jewish, is that out of the realm of possibilities that they turned to the Tanakh to make sense of what happend?

You have yet to address any of my questions with scholars who would say differently than what I have presented to you. Maybe you should call Dawkins or Harris in to refine your debating skills. Which one of the two do you admire more?

How about Bart Ehrman? He is one of the most respected New Testament in the world. He addresses these issues in a number of his works.

Now if you fail to address the totality of the premises that I have presented to you with some tangible evidence that such conspiracies existed, instead just saying how do you know this then this conversation is over. I know what I know because I am using the “historical method” of evidence.

Again, why do you assume this would require conspiracies? Do you deny that is possible (probable) that the Gospel writers used oral tradition? Do you deny that it is possible (probable) that the writers of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source?

If we were to treat all history as you do the Gospel accounts, with the “scientific method” we would not know for sure if Napoleon conquered Rome. Everybody could be making stuff up does not address the question.

This is just not true. You are just not looking critically at the Gospels. Ehrman’s The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings covers a lot of issues about the New Testament’s accuracy. It is a good introduction to the topic.

 

[Equus_Pallidus]

Why do you think conspiracies are necessary? The Gospel writers were all members of the Christian community and were writting from common sources including the oral traditions. Why is it suprising that they would have common themes? The early Christians were heavily Jewish, is that out of the realm of possibilities that they turned to the Tanakh to make sense of what happend?

How about Bart Ehrman? He is one of the most respected New Testament in the world. He addresses these issues in a number of his works.

Again, why do you assume this would require conspiracies? Do you deny that is possible (probable) that the Gospel writers used oral tradition? Do you deny that it is possible (probable) that the writers of Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as a source?

This is just not true. You are just not looking critically at the Gospels. Ehrman’s The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings covers a lot of issues about the New Testament’s accuracy. It is a good introduction to the topic.

Once again you failed to provide any tangible evidence, and have only referred me to something to read. If you have read it then quote it don’t tell me to go read it. I have seen many atheists play this game, and never an agnostic which you claim.

I have debated enough atheists to know one when I see one.

Premise 1) Jesus existed, accepted by you
Premise 2) Jesus was crucified and whipped, accepted by you.

I showed you, that hundreds of years before crucifixion was ever invented that it was prophesied by Isaiah and Psalms and that salvation would come through it. Which you never addressed accepting the premise that he was crucified. And I told you the probabilities of this are astronomical given that he had to be Jewish he had to be born in a certain place (accepting the premise he existed) in a narrow window of time (Crucifixion) for this to happen. The only objection you made were conspirators did this.

This has been my last reply to you until you address these things

4 Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.
6 We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.
7 Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth.
8 Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny? When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people,
9A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.
10 (But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.) If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.
11 Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.
12 Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Once again you failed to provide any tangible evidence, and have only referred me to something to read. If you have read it then quote it don’t tell me to go read it. I have seen many atheists play this game, and never an agnostic which you claim.

I have debated enough atheists to no one when I see one.

Premise 1) Jesus existed, accepted by you
Premise 2) Jesus was crucified and whipped, accepted by you.

I showed you, that hundreds of years before crucifixion was ever invented that it was prophesied by Isaiah and Psalms and that salvation would come through it.

This was not the way these pasages were ever understood before the Christian reinterpretation of them. There may be question as to whether this reinterpretation was correct or not, but there is no question that the early Christians took a different view of these passages that anyone who had read them before.

I don’t have access to a lot of books, so this the best source I can give for now.

Yet other portions of Scripture explained why this was God’s plan. These were again passages that did not mention the Messiah, but Christians nonetheless took them to refer to Jesus, whom they believed to he the Messiah. Most important were passages found in the writings of the prophet Isaiah, who also speaks of the suffering of God’s right- eous one, whom he calls the “Servant of the Lord.” According to the “Songs of the Suffering Servant”-as scholars have labeled four differ- ent passages in Isaiah, the most important of which is 52:13-53:12- this servant of God was one who suffered a heinous and shameful fate: he was despised and rejected (53:3), he was wounded and bruised (53:4-5), he was oppressed and afflicted, he suffered in silence and was eventually killed (53:7-8). This is one who suffered and died to atone for the stns of the people (53:4-5). The interpretation of the original meaning of this passage is difficult, and I do not want to take time to justify the widely held view among scholars that it was originally speaking of the suffering of the nation of Israel during the Babylonian captivity (but see Isa. 49:3). What matters for our purposes is that we have no indication that any Jew, prior to Christianity, ever took the passage as a reference to the Jewish Messiah. You may notice in this connection that the author refers to the Ser- vant’s suffering as past but his vindication as future. Christians understood Jesus’ own suffering similarly, in light of this and other passages. For them, these ancient words described well what Jesus went through. Moreover, for them, Jesus clearly was the chosen one, given his resur- rection and exaltation. Their conclusion: God’s Messiah had to suffer. For what reason? As a sacrifice for the sins of the world. The crucifixion, then, was turned from a stumbling block for Jews into a foundation stone for Christians (see i Cor. 1:23). In reflecting upon their Scriptures, the earliest Jewish Christians concluded that Jesus was meant to suffer and die. This was no mere miscarriage of jus- tice; it was the eternal plan of God. Jesus faithfully carried out his mis- sion, bringing salvation to the world. God therefore exalted him to heaven, making him the Lord of all and setting in motion the sequence of events that would lead to his return in fiery judgment on the earth.

Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Page 236.

Here is a Rabbi’s take on the Song of Suffering.

en.allexperts.com/q/Conservative-Judaism-951/isiah-53.htm

And I told you the probabilities of this are astronomical given that he had to be Jewish he had to be born in a certain place (accepting the premise he existed) in a narrow window of time (Crucifixion) for this to happen.

That only applies if you accept that writings from the Tanakh were actually predicting things about the life of Jesus. I do not (see above).

 

[mich2]

Is there ontological evidence for God’s existence or only logical proofs for God’s existence? Is there evidence for God’s existence that is sufficient to jusitify belief in God? Is it sufficient to justify belief in the existence of a particular God?

Isn’t the old fall back on faith just an excuse to believe whatever a person wants since it does not require evidence?

If God is a product, or invention of the mind, then, it stands to reason that not every form of civilization would have accidently come up with such a notion. If natural atheism could be found among humans, then, I would agree that this would constitute evidence supporting the non -existence of God. By natural atheism, I mean simply a non-belief and not a rejection of God’s existence. However, if natural atheism can be shown to be nonexistent among humans, even to the point of it being an impossibility, then, atheism is the only thing that can be proven as being non-existant. From this, a hypothesis for God’s existence can come forth.
Anthropology has, so far, assured us that, throughout the world and during every ages, a form of supreme consciousness was acknowledged by all humans. So far, natural atheism has been shown to be non-existant. Why? Recently, there has been a theory brought forth (by an atheist ironically) that belief in God might very well be hereditary, imbedded within our genes. This would not only confirm the anthropological observations but could potentially also prove natural atheism to be an impossibility.
Molecular biologist Dean Hamer, an atheist quoted as saying “I think we follow the basic law of nature, which is that we’re a bunch of chemical reactions running around in a bag.” is responsible for this possible discovery of this special gene dubbed the “God gene”.
Dr. Hamer regards this explantion of religious tendencies as being something hardwared within the human body. **“Our most profound feelings of spirituality, according to a literal reading of Hamer’s work, may be due to little more than an occasional shot of intoxicating brain chemicals governed by our DNA”. **
However, a next step, in my opinion, is needed. Since we know the DNA molecule has evolved in such a way as to open up the lifeforms to a greater universe, then, it seems that the universe as such must be brought into the equation as to how life must have evolved, instead of looking at the biochemical changes within the cells only. A holistic look is needed in my opinion, in order to come to understand the nature of evolution. For example, light was first needed for the evolutionary processes to develop the eye. Life evolves in a way to better adapt and also to better interact with the universe. Therefore, if it can be said that the need for a form of theism is imbedded within our human nature, then it seems, in my opinion, the hypothesis for the existance of God must be valid.

Andre

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Ammonius

Because there is no way to prove that he does not.

So if there is no way to prove that God does not exist, and it turns out that He does indeed exist, how do you think someone will fare who comes to final judgment having thumbed his nose at God all his life?

 

[Equus_Pallidus]

This was not the way these pasages were ever understood before the Christian .

T*his is one who suffered and died to atone for the stns of the people (53:4-5). The interpretation of the original meaning of this passage is difficult, and I do not want to take time to justify the widely held view among scholars that it was originally speaking of the suffering of the nation of Israel during the Babylonian captivity (but see Isa. 49:3). What matters for our purposes is that we have no indication that any Jew, prior to Christianity, ever took the passage as a reference to the Jewish Messiah.
*
A quote from a book without a single footnote, and will write over 300 pages and not “want to take the time to justify”. Gee, I wonder why?

He is a pretender, and so are you, sorry but I have dealt with people like you too many times to further waste any more time with you. Nothing personal, but I value my time, and this seems to be the best you can do.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

T*his is one who suffered and died to atone for the stns of the people (53:4-5). The interpretation of the original meaning of this passage is difficult, and I do not want to take time to justify the widely held view among scholars that it was originally speaking of the suffering of the nation of Israel during the Babylonian captivity (but see Isa. 49:3). What matters for our purposes is that we have no indication that any Jew, prior to Christianity, ever took the passage as a reference to the Jewish Messiah.
*
A quote from a book without a single footnote, and will write over 300 pages and not “want to take the time to justify”. Gee, I wonder why?

He is a pretender, and so are you, sorry but I have dealt with people like you too many times to further waste any more time with you. Nothing personal, but I value my time, and this seems to be the best you can do.

He is not dealing with that subject directly in the book I quoted from. As I said, I do not have access to my most of my books (including Ehrman’s The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings) right now to give you a better quote.

However, this is not at all controversial. Nobody interpreted those passages of the Tanakh in the manner you did until after the death of Jesus. Are you actually suggesting that these passages were intrepeted in the manner you suggest before the Christian movement? Do you have anything to back up that idea?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Ammonius

Because there is no way to prove that he does not.

So if there is no way to prove that God does not exist, and it turns out that He does indeed exist, how do you think someone will fare who comes to final judgment having thumbed his nose at God all his life?

I don’t know.

Are you suggesting that not knowing this is somehow evidence for the existence of God?

 

[Equus_Pallidus]

He is not dealing with that subject directly in the book I quoted from. As I said, I do not have access to my most of my books (including Ehrman’s The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings) right now to give you a better quote.

However, this is not at all controversial. Nobody interpreted those passages of the Tanakh in the manner you did until after the death of Jesus. Are you actually suggesting that these passages were intrepeted in the manner you suggest before the Christian movement? Do you have anything to back up that idea?

No, I do not and wouldn’t expect the Jews to as they were the ones who were interpeting it. They thought the messiah would come and be a powerfull man, not one led to slaughter. And as they slayed prophets sent before him, they also slayed him. That is the whole point of the scriptures. He would not be accepted by his own. Do you think they would ever interpret that as being them?

Good day Ammonius, your not such a bad guy, at least you tried.

Update:

But at least you can see now that there is, for those who are Christian, adequate proof of God.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

No, I do not and wouldn’t expect the Jews to as they were the ones who were interpeting it. They thought the messiah would come and be a powerfull man, not one led to slaughter. And as they slayed prophets sent before him, they also slayed him. .

But most (maybe all I don’t remember everything you quoted) of those passages from the Tanakh were not even thought to be about the messiah at all. Isaiah 53 was traditionally interpretted to be about Israel.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that your interpretation is wrong, but I think we need evidence to support that it is right. You cannot point to the fact there was reintrepretation of passages of the Tanakh after the death of the Jesus to prove there is a God. All it shows is that the early Christians reintrepreted these passages.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

But at least you can see now that there is, for those who are Christian, adequate proof of God.

I am assuming that you can see the fallacy in this reasoning,

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

My position is that the belief that God does exist is not supported by the evidence and thus cannot be justified. (I have also stated the same is true of the belief that God does not exist.) As yet, nobody has presented the evidence.

i think the problem you have with evidence is because you are looking only at physical evidence which doesn’t respect the different levels of abstraction or intelligibility:

1. 
   *]physical (material–study of sensible being as sensible)
   *]mathematical (quantity only, leaving behind all sensible aspects of a thing)
   *]metaphysical (beyond physical, being as being).
   
   they are three distinct planes or meaning. we can’t use mathematical knowledge alone to answer questions dealing with ethics. in the same sense, we don’t use physical knowledge only to prove the existence of God.
   
   using physical evidence to disprove God cuts off the branch you are sitting on. what’s primary is that there is an is–we exist. being itself is not explainable by math or physics yet they both depend on being to exist. take away being, you take away math and physics.
   
   as math and physics are dependent on being, being is dependent on God. God is the uncaused cause responsible for the existence of everything. He is the root of all that is, the “is” that permeates all contingent beings and gives them their “to-be”. God’s essence is his existence. that is why he named himself in the bible “I AM WHO AM”.
   
   i got this stuff from this book written by a brilliant physicist who solved a problem in quantum gravity.