Physical, Incontrovertible Proof of God

[Dark Virtue]

Again, I said abandon your presuppositions, as it's especially critical to how you view evidence. It appears that you already believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no evidence for a Creator.

Excuse me? As I have said, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, as a weak atheist, I lack a belief in gods, I do not say that I have evidence against gods. I have never, ever made that claim. What I would like is evidence FOR God.

If you refuse to even be open to the possibility, then no evidence presented would be irrefutable, even if it actually is. If someone doesn't want to believe incontrovertible evidence, they'll find a way around it, even if it isn't logical.

Are you actually reading any of my posts before coming to a conclusion? Again, as I have said, TIME AND TIME AGAIN, I AM open to the possibility that a god exists, that is why I am a weak atheist. Now, on the other hand, are YOU willing to admit that God does NOT exist? I hope you aren't accusing me of denying evidence, because I am not. If there is incontrovertible evidence that you believe I am ignoring, please let me know what it is.

Now my statement was general, and didn't mention anything specific. I said the evidence was all around us, which, taken just as it is without the presence of an explanation, seems awfully arrogant. However, you were all ready to jump all over what ever information I might have presented as not qualifying as "empirical", made clearly apparent in your reply. I didn't even mention anything in that paragraph! Remember, determining whether or not something is "empirical" and "incontrovertable" isn't based on whether or not you want to believe it to be true beforehand.

What is this empirical and incontrovertible evidence that you claim exists all around me? How can I deny it if I don't even know what it is?

Have you read Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator? There are some pretty compelling interviews in there. He interviews scientists on topics concerning their respective fields, asking questions relevant to evolution and the possibility of a designer. Much of the information in the book touches upon recent scientific findings. He interviews astronomers on the "special place" earth seems to have in the universe, and the increasing improbability that there are other planets capable of sustaining life. He also discusses the conditions the universe was formed under with a physicist, and how life would be unsustainable if these conditions were altered ever so slightly. The idea of multi-verses, with this universe "winning the lottery" for sustaining life is also brought up. I could relay some of the things discussed in the book if you'd like, but I'd seriously suggest you look into it.

Have you read any of the arguments against Strobel's works? Or are you not willing to admit his arguments could be wrong? I have looked at his books OBJECTIVELY and have found them lacking.

Here's one if you're willing to objectively view his work: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

Uh-huh, nice sig. Should that quote be irrelevant as well given its source?

What's wrong with the quote and the source?

One of those scientists, Francis Bacon, is largely repsonible for the procedure by which science deems whether or not something is true, and some these results are often labeled "empirical." These are scientists, men who dealt with "empiricism" quite often. Do they really need to have presented inrrefutable proof of God to be considered somewhat credible? If that's the case, then when did Edison or anyone else present irrefutable proof as to the absence of God?

I have never suggested that there is an iota of evidence against the existence of god. Any good scientist knows it's a logical fallacy to prove a negative.

I'm not sure how much digging around you've done on this DV (it appears to be quite a bit), but another recommendation would be reading Patrick Glynn's God: The Evidence. Why? He was an athiest who believed logic revealed there was no God. After looking over the evidence (hello generalization), he changed his mind.

Thanks, I'll look him up. On the other hand, you might want to check out Dan Barker's book, Losing Faith in Faith. He was a minister for many years that turned atheist. Fair is fair

"Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical." - Sir John Templeton

Spiritual realities? Sounds like an oxymoron.

EDIT: I looked at Patrick Glynn's book and I have a few problems with it:

In order for his arguments to work, he makes HUGE assumptions. Example:

4. It is extremely improbable that human life occurred by chance.
5. If it is extremely improbable that human life occurred by chance, then the best explanation of human life is that it was created by God.
_____________________________________________________
6. Hence, the best explanation of human life is that it was created by God.

#5 is a huge assumption, wouldn't you agree? If you disregard the improbality of life occuring by chance, why jump to the conclusion that it was created by God with no proof to support it?

He claims that lower blood pressure is associated with high church attendance. Say WHAT?

He makes a HUGE error by asserting that moral standards are not compatible with atheism.

He uses out of body experiences and near death experiences to claim that an afterlife exists, in spite of medical evidence to the contrary.

Why does Glynn try and use science to back up his theories when he claims that science is full of limitations?

On many occasions Glynn picks and chooses his sources to make his assertions appear credible. Case in point, his arguments on contemporary philosophy. He only uses ONE source instead of looking at contrary philosophers. That's not exactly honest research.

 

[James]

What made you think I wanted something spectacular?

Something can be simple AND incontrovertible, can it not?

Absolutely. It just seems from many of your posts that for you to have indesputable proof of God, you are waiting for a lightning bolt or some kind of big event.

I have told you of the way God has performed in my life. I know that doesn't count as proof for you and it wasn't meant to be. It's like if I told you of a good experience at a restaurant, ultimateley you would have to experience the food and service for yourself, and that is what I am trying to explain.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Absolutely. It just seems from many of your posts that for you to have indesputable proof of God, you are waiting for a lightning bolt or some kind of big event.

Not at all, that is why I described it as a handshake. I don't need something on the level of a global plague.

I have told you of the way God has performed in my life. I know that doesn't count as proof for you and it wasn't meant to be. It's like if I told you of a good experience at a restaurant, ultimateley you would have to experience the food and service for yourself, and that is what I am trying to explain.

And from my point of view, I heard about the restaurant too and upon my visit, the building looked very cool, but upon entering, I found it completely empty.

 

[SLNT_FIR]

It's because you need to learn to listen to him. It takes time to learn how to, you are simply saying, why doesn't he do THIS because it would make it EASIER. Simply, it IS easy.

It is easy. You don't get it, WE are the ones making it hard.

I find it harder to experiance God recently, because I'm backlapsing, and that somehow, I don't know, it makes it harder for me, it's much more different than last fall.

Simple and easy, he is giving you the handshake. You aren't willing to turn around and take it.

You are facing one direction and he is right in front of you in the doorway, but you refuse to let him in, you want him to go in for you, it is simply easy, but if you do not want to do it yourself, he will NOT do it FOR you. It's your decision to accept him, not his decision.

And that does not bluntly answer the question the way you might want, but that is my answer, and I read it over and the argument makes sense, if not my grammer.

 

[Dark Virtue]

You can't say that it's easy and in the next breath say it's hard.

Which is it? Easy or hard?

Either way, it doesn't address the topic of this post. Why doesn't God give us physical, incontrovertible proof of his existence?

 

[James]

Because then everyone would have to believe... Not because they wanted to, but because they would be forced to, and God doesn't want that.

He doesn't want to force people to believe in Him, He wants us to choose Him. Faith demonstrates true heart and love.

 

[Dark Virtue]

That makes no sense though.

What does it matter if everyone believes or not?

We still have the option to follow him or not, correct?

If we had incontrovertible proof, we would still have the ability to decide whether we would want to follow him or not.

You say that God wants us to choose him, but that choice would not be lost in the face of proof.

Please explain why you believe faith demonstrates love and why you can't have love in the face of evidence.

 

[James]

Let's say I tell you that I just bought a new car, and that the car was red. Let's also say that you refused to believe me. I then brought you into the parking lot where I showed you my new red car, and just to make it undisputable I also showed you the signed title, the keys and started the car myself.

Would you still have a choice whether to believe me or not about my new car being red, or would you be forced to accept it?

God does not want forced acceptance, He wants people to have faith and to trust Him and love Him openly without having to understand it all first.

Faith shows trust; lack of faith shows doubt and mistrust.

 

[Eon]

There's a difference - if you said your car was red, then I'd nod my head. If, on the other hand, you said your car could fly then you'd better believe I would want to see that baby in the air. If your response was "Well, I would but I haven't filled the tank, and the CAA is murder on unplanned flights. And the security situation is dangerous. And I can't be bothered." then you better believe I'd go with all the evidence I've gathered that cars can't fly.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Eh??

Sorry, but that's a horrible analogy.

Let's try George Bush, shall we?

On one of his many tours, you have the opportunity to meet him, listen to him, have your picture taken with him, shake hands with him, and if you can afford $1000 a plate, have dinner with him.

You have plenty of incontrovertible evidence to believe that he exists.

Now the choice part: Do you vote for him or not?

 

[MASH 4077]

You have plenty of incontrovertible evidence to believe that he exists.

Now the choice part: Do you vote for him or not?

Well if it was God that was there shaking your hand, would you choose to accept him as your Lord, or would you go 'vote' for someone else. But, why would you 'vote' for someone else, if you KNOW that he exists, I guess your not FORCED to accept him, but, why would you believe in anything else, if your are positive God exists. I think you need to read this book I dont have enough faith to be an athiest

 

[Dark Virtue]

I think you're mistaking strong atheism for weak atheism. Strong atheism asserts that God does not exist. Weak atheism, which the majority of atheists subscribe to, is simply a lack of a belief, due in part, to a lack of evidence.

I don't understand this whole FORCED acceptance bit. I'm not FORCED to accept the existence of George Bush. There is evidence to prove he exists, therefore he exists, it's a FACT.

I don't need to be FORCED to accept that God exists, I simply need proof and evidence that he exists. How can I make a sound, logical decision to follow him if I don't know exactly who he is?

I've seen that book by the way, but haven't read much of it. Want my quick take on it? Too bad, here it is

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". Pardon me? It doesn't take ANY faith, faith is never called into question, unlike theism that makes faith NECESSARY. Let's take a look at the bullet point on the webpage you supplied.

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all worldviews because it is the most reasonable.

What definition of reasonable is being used here? My definition is "being in accordance to reason", with reason being, "a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense". The belief in theism is NOT reasonable under those definitions. That's why faith is necessary.

The authors lay out the evidence for truth, God, and the Bible in logical order and in a readable, non-technical, engaging style.

Ugh, I won't even go into the correct definition of evidence.

Tell you what, if I agree to look into it further, will you do the same to a book of my choice? Take a look at Losing Faith in Faith, by Dan Barker

Deal?

 

[MASH 4077]

sure, i will look into it. Is there a site where you can download it free? Like in a pdf file?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Sorry, it's a real paper book

 

[MASH 4077]

darn, well, 25$, is alot. Library should have it, or, since its a book my dad will get it for me heh.

 

[James]

All I can say is that if God didn't exist then I would not have survived birth. That's a personal testimony that cannot be scientifically proven. Then again, it doesn't have to be.

People choose to not belief things that they really should. Walk up to a smoker and tell them that smoking causes Cancer. Even after all these years there are quite a few that still don't believe it and will continue to smoke.

Walk into a bar and tell alcoholics that drinking beer causes kidney and liver disease; they will either laugh at you or attack you physically.

Personal testimonies are often disregarded, until it is too late.

I cannot scientifically prove that God lead you to this forum to seek answers, and I cannot scientifically prove that God has provided several people here to write those answers out; but I believe that is exactly what has happened. And now like before, the choice is yours to either accept it or reject it. No-one can make that choice for you.

That's really all there is to say.

 

[Eon]

I have known a couple of alcoholics and MANY smokers. They have all understood the health risks of their habit, but persisted anyway either because they lack the will to quit or because they are unable to prioritise a distant cost against an immediate "gain".

Many of us are like that in other ways - like those that eat too much or who don't exercise or who don't invest.

 

[Dark Virtue]

All I can say is that if God didn't exist then I would not have survived birth. That's a personal testimony that cannot be scientifically proven. Then again, it doesn't have to be.

Why does that have to be chalked up to God? Sometimes extraordinary things happen for no reason.

People choose to not belief things that they really should. Walk up to a smoker and tell them that smoking causes Cancer. Even after all these years there are quite a few that still don't believe it and will continue to smoke.

We're talking about two different things though. There is incontrovertible evidence to believe that smoking causes cancer, there is NOT incontrovertible proof to believe in a god. I think you're looking one step too far, we're not talking about choosing to follow God or not, we're talking about proof to believe that he exists.

Walk into a bar and tell alcoholics that drinking beer causes kidney and liver disease; they will either laugh at you or attack you physically.

Try telling a Christian that God doesn't exist

Personal testimonies are often disregarded, until it is too late.

But personal testimonies can't count as evidence unless you can back those testimonies up. I can give you my personal testimony about flying an F-16, but without evidence, how can you believe what I say?

I cannot scientifically prove that God lead you to this forum to seek answers, and I cannot scientifically prove that God has provided several people here to write those answers out; but I believe that is exactly what has happened. And now like before, the choice is yours to either accept it or reject it. No-one can make that choice for you.

And that's the problem with religion, there isn't much that you CAN scientifically prove.

What have you given me to accept or reject? The choice to what?

That's really all there is to say.

Don't worry, I can think of more

 

[James]

It's all about faith. I've said that before, which is why asking for proof of God will never get you anywhere.

Faith requires that a person admit that they can not understand everything, and causes them to place their trust in something greater than themselves.

When you are ready to do that, then God will show Himself to you, but again, as I have said before, the burden is yours; you must take the first step.

 

[Eon]

James, I think you may have missed the start of this thread - the one where both DV and myself tell you that this is what we tried to do, but with no success.