What is your favorite proof for God?

[ayndim]

I don’t need proof. However, if I was looking for proof it would be God’s presence in my life. The way He provides for me emotionally and financially. I was a stay-at-home mom when my ex-husband left. After finally trusting the Lord to provide for me financially, I am now a work-at-home mom who homeschools her children. It only took me 3 years.

 

[neisan]

The saints.Their stories are very inspiring to me and we can use them as proof that God exists.

 

[ProveIt312]

You need to start a new thread…

No, his questions fit right here.

 

[ProveIt312]

Energy, and the existance of natural laws. The understanding that the source of all that exists had to be eternal (which is the conclusion both athiests and theist agree on) what that source is, is understood differently be both parties. Athiests say its the universe or some other natural force that is unkown while theists say it is God a super natural being.

There are a few problems with the god hypothesis, the most obvious of which is the question of who created the creator. One can’t argue that everything requires a creator, hence there’s a god, then claim god DIDN’T need a creator- it’s self-contradictory. Additionally, everything that exists in the universe is either matter or energy. If god is neither, he doesn’t exist by definition. Also, one must be either energy or matter to interact with energy or matter. If god did interact with with energy or matter, he’d have to be one or the other, and therefore testable and observable.

Yet the fact is that the universe and everything in it looks and behaves just as one would expect it to absent some sort of supernatural creator or caretaker. This of course can refer to any generic god, where as more specific gods create even more holes in logic and reason. The Greek/Roman gods lived on Mt. Olympus, created thunder and lightning, tsunamis, war, etc. Yet all of these claims are easily proven false by modern knowledge and reason - even by other theists - and hence are relegated to the realm of mythology. Yet the Abrahamic god is no better; the creation of the earth and universe, explanation for the source of sin and evil and countless other assertions made by the associated faiths are equally dismissable by modern knowledge and reason.

People have seen purpose and meaning where there is none for centuries, but the “proofs” people claim support their belief in god are never ultimately any more than saying a rainbow is proof there’s a pot of gold at the end of it.

 

[ProveIt312]

Actually it’s not disproved at all because infinity is a construct, not a fact. There is no physical interpretation of infinity, positive or negative. Our universe has been in existence for 4.7E+17 seconds, and we have numbers that go well beyond that power as both physical constructs and physical objects.

On topic, my favorite proof is children: from a fetus to birth & beyond, it is quite the miracle.

And also understood in naturalistic, supernatural-free terms.

 

[Langdell]

My favorite is the historical proof: he entered time and space and left the marks of his passage.

It’s my favorite for the same reason that I’d rather consume great bread and wine than talk about how they surely must exist.

I like this answer!

The only time I gave much thought to proofs of God’s existence was when I was an atheist. Now that I’ve returned to the Church, I don’t need any proofs.

.

 

[usemelord]

I know we’re supposed to be as kind and civil to each other on these posts whether we agree or disagree on certain subjects. But, that said, Post #40 by ProveIt312 made me laugh out loud, and I don’t often laugh out loud especially when I’m by myself. What are we supposed to think?; that the “presumed” creator had to have a creator and if none of this can be proven, then where does this leave us all? I know, ProveIt312, that I am oversimplifying your position. Forgive me. Just look at my earlier post which says, in essence, that for those who cannot accept the existence of God either philosophically or scientifically, no explanation will ever suffice. Math and science are your own sacred cows. Enjoy. God, my dear friend, is not a mere “hypothesis.”

 

[tobbias88]

A flower

 

[greenpatrick125]

My favorite proof is the miracle of the Icorruptibles. The are the bodies of saints whos bodies did not decay. Look them up, they are very interesting.

Another proof that really gets me are the miracles and favors recieved through the intercession of saints. Have you ever noticed in the newspaper, where advertisers give thanks to God and saints for miracles. A usual prayer is The Prayer of Thanks to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and St. Jude. You will always see these advertisements, I think its great!! I have The Prayer of Thanks posted in my profile. If you want to use it, print it out, laminate it and keep it in your pocket for daily use (you dont have to do it).

Greenpatrick125

 

[Abu]

Those befuddled atheists who don’t accept that reason alone can prove the existence of God, have not used their reason reasonably.

Antony Flew, the most notorious atheist, now attests to reason and is now a deist.
“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence,” he affirms. "I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source.
“Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than half a century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it that has emerged from modern science. Science spotlights three dimensions of nature that point to God. The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life, of intelligently organized and purpose-driven beings, which arose from matter. The third is the very existence of nature.” (There Is a God, 2007, pp. 88-89).

 

[TomD123]

There are a few problems with the god hypothesis, the most obvious of which is the question of who created the creator. One can’t argue that everything requires a creator, hence there’s a god, then claim god DIDN’T need a creator- it’s self-contradictory. Additionally, everything that exists in the universe is either matter or energy. If god is neither, he doesn’t exist by definition. Also, one must be either energy or matter to interact with energy or matter. If god did interact with with energy or matter, he’d have to be one or the other, and therefore testable and observable.

"Everything needs a creator- God is not a physical reality- he does not need a creator. Theists do not believe God needed a creator because he is existence itself, he stands outside of time and space, therefore, he does not need a creator. We need a creator because we are physical and we pass through time. Everything we see in this world has a creator, but God is of another world

You said everything that exists in this universe is either matter or energy- FALSE! Concepts like beauty exist, Thoughts and Dreams exist! But even if you were right, once again, God is not part of this universe

Why must one be matter or energy to interact with it? This is true in the physical world but we believe God can do anything. If you are going to argue for Atheism do not just say the God argument is false because its false, which is what you are basically saying.

I have to ask, since you are an atheist, why try to prove God’s non-existence to others? Why does it matter to you? In your mind both of us will go out to where we were since the beginning of time, our atoms will rearrange somewhere else and our existence would have never mattered.

 

[amthisrock]

My favorite proof for God is his design of the world for those who believe in him. As you journey in your faith, you find the reasons why God created the world and humans as he did. My one example is the design of prayer in faith. We have been asked to pray constantly by our Lord and now I know why he can say that. He designed us to pray constantly. How else can we receive constant comfort from someone who will listen always? Although “texting” seems to be approaching that capability. Anyway, God knows that we need the comfort of constant companionship, 24/7. That is why he created prayer.
God bless,
amthisrock

 

[PJM]

=jpk1313;6438127]Just wondering what is your favorite proof for god and why? Personaly I like St. Thomas Aquinas’ first one, All things in motion are put in motion by a first mover, becuse when I apply this proof to my prayer life or any question about faith or morals it leads me to a deeper understanding. What about you?

"I AM" “little OL’ Me” [OK, maybe NOT soooo little].

WHY?

Because like all humanity I have a mind, intellct, freewill and soul. ALL of these are spiritual attributes [smilar but much lesser than God’s], none of which can be seen, touched, quantified; so they had to come from a GREATER Spiritual Source. That source we call choose to call our God:thumbsup:

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[neophyte]

There are a few problems with the god hypothesis, the most obvious of which is the question of who created the creator. One can’t argue that everything requires a creator, hence there’s a god, then claim god DIDN’T need a creator- it’s self-contradictory.

The argument isn’t that everything needs a creator, it’s that every effect has a cause. The difference is significant.

Additionally, everything that exists in the universe is either matter or energy. If god is neither, he doesn’t exist by definition.

The error here is that God exists outside of the universe. He can, howver, extend himself into it if he chooses.

Also, one must be either energy or matter to interact with energy or matter…

That’s an unprovable assertion on your part. It’s equivalent to a claim that all causes are observable.

 

[greylorn]

The OP makes no sense without a definition of God.

An intelligent definition of God would disclose all of the entity’s properties, including that of “entity,” if applicable. (I would expect that to be the most fundamental level of definition.)

That this thread has degenerated into mental mush is no surprise, given that no poster understands, clearly, what he, she, or it is talking about.

Given the commonly accepted definition of God as an entity Who is non-physical, has no origin, knows everything, can do anything in an instant by an act of will, there is no proof. There can be no proof of such a being, for the concept of proof implies the use of common logic, which has rules. The God of Christianity has no rules. How could an entity Who can declare that 2+2=5, be “proven” by a system of logic which insists that 2+2 can only equal 4?

Such a God can be believed in, but not proven. If you choose to believe, then believe.

If you need proof of a Creator, why not define a Creator whose existence can actually be proven?

 

[tim_kc]

kids, i have 2 and i saw the birth of both of them.
and God dont make no junk.
the sun came up today in the east sky.

 

[neophyte]

…That this thread has degenerated into mental mush is no surprise, given that no poster understands, clearly, what he, she, or it is talking about…

No poster other than yourself, I suppose?

…The God of Christianity has no rules. How could an entity Who can declare that 2+2=5, be “proven” by a system of logic which insists that 2+2 can only equal 4?

Case in point. Your understanding of God’s attributes is faulty. No one has ever claimed that God could make 2+2=5. or a circle with three corners. That claim is a straw man set up by those who wish to disprove his existance.

 

[tonyrey]

An intelligent definition of God would disclose all of the entity’s properties, including that of “entity,” if applicable. (I would expect that to be the most fundamental level of definition.)

How can a finite intelligence define Infinite Reality? To define means to clarify the limits of what is defined. And how could one expect to know all God’s attributes?

 

[PJM]

=neophyte;6472456]The argument isn’t that everything needs a creator, it’s that every effect has a cause. The difference is significant.

The error here is that God exists outside of the universe. He can, howver, extend himself into it if he chooses.

That’s an unprovable assertion on your part. It’s equivalent to a claim that all causes are observable.

***EXCELLENT RESPONSE! Thanks!

I would add that not everything is understandable by the human faculaties. For example what is the origin of sight anhearing?

What is the Origin of humanities mind, intellectd freewill?

Why in the entire Universe of BILLIONS of plantes, is Earth the only one that can sustain life?

If “God” did not always exit? What is the “first Cause?”***

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[ProveIt312]

I know we’re supposed to be as kind and civil to each other on these posts whether we agree or disagree on certain subjects. But, that said, Post #40 by ProveIt312 made me laugh out loud, and I don’t often laugh out loud especially when I’m by myself. What are we supposed to think?; that the “presumed” creator had to have a creator and if none of this can be proven, then where does this leave us all? I know, ProveIt312, that I am oversimplifying your position. Forgive me. Just look at my earlier post which says, in essence, that for those who cannot accept the existence of God either philosophically or scientifically, no explanation will ever suffice. Math and science are your own sacred cows. Enjoy. God, my dear friend, is not a mere “hypothesis.”

Ah, but you’re mistaken; I’m absolutely open to any evidence that could support the god hypothesis; and yes, it IS a hypothesis, as it has yet to be sufficiently supported by evidence and most descriptions of god claim he’s not testable, therefore not falsifiable, and therefore no different that a magical invisible pink unicorn.

Getting back on point, there are things that would make me reconsider the existence of a personal god. Appearing to humanity should be an easy one. Prayer actually working would be another, particularly on, say, an amputee regrowing a limb. A positive correlation between belief and life span, morality, ethics, peace, charity, intelligence or anything else deemed positive or “good”. Perhaps if any of the holy books posessed knowledge impossible to be known at the time of their writings, rather than the reality that they contain countless historical and scientific errors, as well as being repeatedly self-contradictory. Yet none of these very reasonable requests have ever come close to being met; rather, each and every test or observation has failed miserably.

I was a believer for the first half of my life. What led me away from belief was simply an objective interpretation of available evidence mixed with some critical thinking and honest reason. I’m not inspired by preconceived notions, biases, wants, hopes, fears or childhood indoctrination, but simply follow the evidence to the most reasonable conclusion. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when there’s no evidence where there should be, and ultimately anything that can be asserted without sufficient evidence can just as easily dismissed.

I’m sure the personal “proof” listed by various people in here is very profound to the individual, but from an outside and objective perspective, the “proofs” listed are laughable and even a bit sad - I was hoping for some profound insight somewhere, yet all I’ve seen is the same hokey delusions of people seeing an elephant in the clouds and concluding it must really be an elephant.