What is your favorite proof for God?

[avflf]

So, did the original force leave any characteristic marks on what it produced. If I squeeze reality into being - realitys’ form and quality are similar to me - its creator, si?

You mean like Jehovah creating man in his own image and that’s why we have two arms and two legs as opposed to 4 each?

 

[antunesaa]

The Wikipedia explanations of the Fatima “miracle of the sun” might be plausible but it doesn’t explain why they occurred at that particular place and time! The little peasant children had no way of anticipating that certain natural phenomena would occur at that specific time and place. The only had their vision of the” Lady” who said that she would perform this miracle to make the unbelievers believe. Also, it would seem to me that there would be numerous people who would have walked away from this experience with severe eye damage due to staring into the sun for so long. In fact, many people were cured of blindness and other physical disabilities after the event. Only God can cause nature to perform “on command “. We believers call it a miracle!

I agree with you that it was a miracle.

 

[antunesaa]

The skeptics cannot be won over.

No, blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe … because the proof is in our hearts.

No doubt about that. Which reminds me of a very funny quote from G.K. Chesterton, where he says that the only man he knew who affirmed to have seen a ghost refused to believe in ghosts. I don’t remember from which of his books this is.

 

[humble_catholic]

And you liken our belief to fairy tales!

Part 1
Provelt seems to be operating on the very extreme fringe of academia and historia. Doctor William Lane Craig has rightly pointed out that the part of Saints Pauls first letter to the corinthian church (about jesus’s resurrection)can be dated as far back as 5 years after the resurrection of Christ and MOST new testament scholars are in agreement about the historicity of the resurrection.

There are conspiracy nutcases throughout history, but most intellectuals within academia and historia no longer argue about its historicity. Throw in the eyewitness to the part of marks gospel that is related to the resurrection and you get 7 years after Christ’s death and resurrection, and this is from his source which as Craig rightly points out has to be even earlier than 7 years. Provelt you need to start researching this yourself and try to stay with the majority of moderate academia. Or you can venture into the 1% extremist area where everything must be doubted including every other historic event itself.

Our knowledge in history about Alexander the great was written anywhere between 200 and 400 years after his death, yet most historians accept this history. Most atheists will respond by saying that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.

Very true, would you say that eyewitness accounts of 600 people count as part of what would be considered extraordinary proof? Would you say that the disciples desire to die because they absolutely believed that Jesus was resurrected as extraordinary proof?
Would you say that Paul, who was on his way to Damascus to persecute and kill more christians before seeing the miracle of Jesus’s resurrection, being blinded and converting to Christianity as extraordinary proof? If they wanted to lie about the resurrection why would they say that women first discovered this? If you knew anything about that time and culture You would know that they considered women as a lower species of eyewitness then men. Do the numerous eyewitness account of his miracles count? Does the fact that even his enemies (the pharasees) admitted to Jesus performing miracles count? The fact that the gospels were started to be written in a time and area that was very hostile to Jesus shows that other versions could have been written to demolish the claims made in the early scriptures.

Historical Documents can be evaluated by three basic principles of historiography, bibliographical evidence, internal evidence, and external evidence.

The bibliographical test is based upon how many ancient manuscript copies of the document exist, and how many years between the first copy being written to the earliest manuscripts current existing. The Bible ranks very highly by this test, especially the New Testament. The latter has 24,633 known copies in manuscript form, including fragments.

In contrast, only eight copies of Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War exist, and 1,300 years exist between when it was first written, and the earliest copy of it still in existence. Tacitus’ Annals were first written about 100 A.D., but the earliest copy presently existing is from about 1100 A.D., and only 20 or fewer manuscripts of it exist.* Yet historians don’t doubt the general accuracy of these works (unless they are heavily influence by post-modernism, in which case they doubt just about everything). As F.F. Bruce pointed out: “. . . [N]o classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because they earliest mss of their workers which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.”[j] The same kind of secular reasoning can be used to support the Bible’s reliability.*

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*You mean like Jehovah creating man in his own image and that’s why we have two arms and two legs as opposed to 4 each? *

God designed us, I think,
with thighs and legs to run
from beasts in the night;
and with arms and fists
to put up a fight;
with fingers to write
great hymns of joy,
and throat to sing them,
and tongue to applaud.

Mock all you like
our Designer God;
He leads us to peace
in the land of Nod.

 

[antunesaa]

The Apostles’ behavior is truly remarkable - they were Jesus closest companions for the 1 or 3 years (depending on which Gospel story one chooses) of his ministry and after witnessing all the signs and wonders that accompanied his ministry (the miracles, the transfiguration, walking on water) they run away and deny him - and incomprehensible to me.

To me the apostles’ behavior is truly… human. Their actions are pretty much what I would expect from almost everyone when confronted with opprobrium and death.

 

[humble_catholic]

Sorry for the long and winded post, but I saw a few posters here talk about the gospels as being the best proof of Jesus life and resurrection and I had to post this. This to me is the greatest proof of Gods existence(god actually coming down to earth to live with us and be with us) Its something that has given me great comfort during my recent bout with OCD.
Forgive me if I have overstepped my boundaries.

The internal evidence test involves checking how credible the written record is and to what extent it contradicts itself or engages in self-evident absurdities. One checks how close in time and geographical location the document was written to where the events it narrates occurred. Since the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or by people who recorded eyewitness accounts, they have a high a priori[k] possibility of being correct. Also, since they were written in the lifetime of those who saw Jesus preach, hostile witnesses, such as the non-converted Jews, could have attacked harshly any inaccuracies in the Gospels. The non-Christian Jews knew Jesus had done miracles, so as a result Peter could make statements such as Acts 2:22: “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as your yourselves know . . .” If Jesus hadn’t existed, or hadn’t done miracles, Peter wouldn’t have dared to appeal to the “common knowledge” of the Jews that Jesus did exist, and had done miracles. Hence, the internal evidence test yields powerful secular arguments for the reliability of the Bible.

there are many that set out to disprove Christianity historically and in a very rational way and came back believers. Most people dont know this but Lew Wallace, the guy who wrote Ben hur(was an agnostic) originally intended to portray Jesus as just a man in his book, but after his famous runin with the famed unbeliever Robert Ingersoll and his own further Rational Research became a believer.

Frank Morrison who was an atheist journalist who was determined to prove that Jesus’s Resurrection was a myth, came back a believer after investigating the historical facts.

These people were actually biased against Christianity, but like atheisms most famous debater of the 20th century Doctor Antony Flew (who I believe recently passed away, may his soul rest in peace with our lord jesus Christ) who came to believe in a supreme intelligence behind the creation of all things in our universe when asked why he converted, he simply said that he went where the evidence was.

Sorry for the long and winded posts, but if you want to stay within mainstream academia the gospels are one of the most accurate accounts for the life, death and resurrection of our Lord, and when compared to other ancient documents is extremely accurate historically.

God Bless

 

[Mijoy2]

This may sound sarcastic but I assure it is not.

a favorite proof of mine is:
He cannot and will not be disproven.

 

[humble_catholic]

To me the apostles’ behavior is truly… human. Their actions are pretty much what I would expect from almost everyone when confronted with opprobrium and death.

Correct, but the transformation of the disciples that took place after The resurrection was nothing short of MIRACULOUS . Even Secular writers have to admit this

 

[avflf]

*You mean like Jehovah creating man in his own image and that’s why we have two arms and two legs as opposed to 4 each? *

God designed us, I think,
with thighs and legs to run
from beasts in the night;
and with arms and fists
to put up a fight;
with fingers to write
great hymns of joy,
and throat to sing them,
and tongue to applaud.

Mock all you like
our Designer God;
He leads us to peace
in the land of Nod.

Far be it from me to mock
And you faith to knock
As I see that your belief
Comforts you in time of grief.
But surely you must know
When running from a foe
Four legs are better than two
If you use them well and true.
And when your hands you raise
To heaven in gesture of praise
How more reverent would be
If instead to two you had three.
One for Father one for Son
To the Spirit the other one
And if of throats you had more
You’d still sing if one was sore.

 

[humble_catholic]

Absolutely beautiful words

 

[grannymh]

Looking in the mirror because human nature itself is a proof for God.

 

[Athanasiy]

I have respect for the atheists and agnostics , who are moral and who sacrifice for the sake of society , science , for the sake of the neighbour.
They defend ‘’ morality ‘’
They defend morality for its own sake !
I think that deep in their hearts , they believe that if there is a God , then at least God will not blame them , just because they are nice people.
But every noble action of these people , every good act , every sacrifice and good deed - just call for eternity , just call for the ''meaning ‘’ !
We are created for eternity !
Our inner being demands eternity !

 

[BlueSapphire]

This was written by an Ex-Atheist - his proof of the existence of God!

Ex- Atheist NDE

 

[alitaptap]

Looking in the mirror because human nature itself is a proof for God.

Catholic believe God to be the “source of life” (Jn 5:26) and of love since “Love comes from God” (1 Jn 4:7). “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8) and man has been made “in his image and likeness” (Gn 1:26). Thus, man is most himself when he honors life and lives by love. Then he is most like to God.

 

[DysonSphere]

All this stuff begins with assumptions which are guaranteed to promote the desired outcome of the argument.

This is true, as evidenced from the fact that the argument I presented cuts both ways. Depending on the premise, it either concludes that God must exist or that God can’t. Since either of the premises are equally non-intuitive, and so there is no reason to choose one over the other, the argument leads to the conclusion: God might exist. I agree with this, but I’m not sure how helpful the conclusion actually is.

Defining maximum greatness as omnipotence and omniscience is like defining the greatest politician as the one with the biggest muscles or the highest I.Q. Not relevant to the way things work.

What one does with the proof is also heavily dependent on prior-assumed theology.

Suppose that one is interested in workable ideas, instead of in who’s right or whose God is biggest. Suppose that we (well, me and someone other than you) are actually interested in figuring out what we are, and what our purpose might be.

Why someone other than me?

Your God is the Creator and Superboss of a universe in which the concept of free will is absurd.

I do not have a God. I suppose that, if God existed and I believed He did, I still would not have a God of my own. God would instead have me.

In speaking with theists (which I am not), I’d recommend using the phrase “the God you posit” instead of “your God”. It may seem a bit less polemical. Of course, if irenic discourse is not your goal, then please ignore my recommendation.

 

[humble_catholic]

As I posted before the most powerful evidence for gods existence is the study of the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection. The fact that even some of these documents were dated so close to the resurrection’s time is very powerful. Its extraordinary that they were written so close to Jesus’s death, that they had to write them under direct threat of death and even more extraordinary that they have survived till today.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence? I this what I presented before is extraordinary evidence
god bless

 

[Andy_III]

This is true, as evidenced from the fact that the argument I presented cuts both ways. Depending on the premise, it either concludes that God must exist or that God can’t. Since either of the premises are equally non-intuitive, and so there is no reason to choose one over the other, the argument leads to the conclusion: God might exist. I agree with this, but I’m not sure how helpful the conclusion actually is.

Let us begin from here. God might exist. In more formal terms, you are saying that there exists a non-zero probability Pg that God exists. Taking this possibility into account, we must then examine what can be known about God. Certainly, most religions speak of an afterlife that involves either infinite goodness or infinite badness (even if you think hell might not be as bad as, say, a hangnail – having a hangnail for all eternity results in infinite pain). Since often legends and such passed down through the generations have some kernel of truth in them, we can assume that there also exists a non-zero chance Pa that there is an afterlife. If we examine the expected value (or utility if you prefer) of obtaining the good afterlife vs. the bad one, we get an infinite result. This means that even a small chance of an infinite reward is worth risking everything else for. Therefore, I submit to you that an agnostic should not rest until he determines with reasonable certainty whether God exists and act accordingly. He or she would need to either:

1. Reduce Pg or Pa to zero (or infinitesimally small)
   OR
2. Increase Pg to a high enough level where faith can increase Pg to 1 (certainty) for you

Do not persist in your unbelief but believe.

I don’t mind telling you to investigate on your own, because most people who sincerely look into it (regardless of their initial bias) come to #2. This is the same reason why I don’t mind encouraging people to question and investigate their faith, because the result is they usually wind up in the Catholic Church. Have fun along the journey! It is worth it!

 

[DysonSphere]

I do not want to minimize your probabilistic analysis which I imagine would be compelling to many people.

The central issue is that I’m not at this time very interested in the question. I’m somewhat interested, or else I wouldn’t be commenting on message boards like this, but I’m not “very interested”. I’m not interested enough to learn a great deal of theology or philosophy, in order to answer the question, partly because I don’t think it’s likely I’d get anywhere confidently (if there were a good philosophical/theological argument for God’s existence, and if it lead an objective thinker to a nearly-one probability of God’s existence, then eventually far more than 10-20% of philosophers will accept that this God exists, and the work will be done for me). It seems like the best philosophical and theological minds are undecided about the answer to the question of God and afterlife. People reach different conclusions about this all the time.

The other reason is because of my natural gifts and interests. I’m much more interested in why CH+ is so abundant in diffuse clouds than whether there is an eternal heaven or hell.

The final reason is that I cannot understand why a good being would create an eternal torment for those who simply weren’t interested in finding out if it existed while they were alive. If I’m wrong in this assertion, and there exists such a place of eternal torment, then I suppose I will have made a terrible mistake. I’m willing to take that risk.

I hope this provides an alternative to your proposal; I can see why your argument would compel many people to make the search for god and afterlife their first priority. It helps me understand why people would want to go into theology in the first place.

Let us begin from here. God might exist. In more formal terms, you are saying that there exists a non-zero probability Pg that God exists. Taking this possibility into account, we must then examine what can be known about God. Certainly, most religions speak of an afterlife that involves either infinite goodness or infinite badness (even if you think hell might not be as bad as, say, a hangnail – having a hangnail for all eternity results in infinite pain). Since often legends and such passed down through the generations have some kernel of truth in them, we can assume that there also exists a non-zero chance Pa that there is an afterlife. If we examine the expected value (or utility if you prefer) of obtaining the good afterlife vs. the bad one, we get an infinite result. This means that even a small chance of an infinite reward is worth risking everything else for. Therefore, I submit to you that an agnostic should not rest until he determines with reasonable certainty whether God exists and act accordingly. He or she would need to either:

1. Reduce Pg or Pa to zero (or infinitesimally small)
   OR
2. Increase Pg to a high enough level where faith can increase Pg to 1 (certainty) for you

Do not persist in your unbelief but believe.

I don’t mind telling you to investigate on your own, because most people who sincerely look into it (regardless of their initial bias) come to #2. This is the same reason why I don’t mind encouraging people to question and investigate their faith, because the result is they usually wind up in the Catholic Church. Have fun along the journey! It is worth it!

 

[Abu]

DysonSphere
The final reason is that I cannot understand why a good being would create an eternal torment for those who simply weren’t interested in finding out if it existed while they were alive

You seem devoid of normal reason, and joy of discovery. Here is an interview with a former atheist.

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism:tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.
“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.