Curt's Invitation - Prove God Exists!

[Eran of Arcadia]

And doesn't that mean everyone else in the camp died? Where was their miracle?

I do believe in miracles in the sense of divine intervention (not the breaking of the laws of nature) but God doesn't devote all His time to saving religious people from imminent danger. Sometimes, we die.

 

[Truronian]

That 'miracle' sounds like a lie to me . People have a tendancy to exagerate stories to make them more thrilling/telling/emotional etc.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well, everyone who died in the camp is now God. We may be confused as to who the miracle happened to.

 

[civ2]

CurtSibling
Interesting quotes:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=146476

There are open miracles that break the laws of nature as though they were meaningless --miracles any fool can perceive.

Then there are miracles that take some thought to realize, that, yes, something out of the ordinary occurred here.

And then there are miracles so great, so wondrous, that no one but G-d Himself is cognizant of them. They are the miracles that occur continuously, at every moment.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=146483

The fall of the communist dictatorships of the Eastern Bloc was a kind of miracle that has no historical precedent. Never before were so many people affected by such radical change with so little violence.

The miracles of the Gulf War were open miracles. The same skud missiles that took countless lives in Iran were impotent when they struck their target in Israel. The soldiers and officers of the Allied Forces saw inexplicable miracles in their victory. Other miracles took some thought to realize that they were miracles, that the laws of nature were not the only thing at play here. But anyone who saw what occurred in the Gulf War saw openly that this was miraculous.

And yet people ask, “Where are the miracles today?”

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=60963

G-d can do anything. He could even, as the Talmud puts it, "fit an elephant through the eye of a needle."

So, how would He do it? Would He make the elephant smaller? Or would He expand the eye of the needle?

Neither. The elephant would remain big, the eye of the needle small. And He would fit the elephant through the eye of the needle.

Illogical? True. But logic is just another of His creations. He who created logic is permitted to disregard it.

The whole book:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=145392

NOTE: This book is not considered a "religious text" - rather a high-level philosophy one.

 

[MobBoss]

I duly re-invite our religious posters to explain why they wish us to accept their beliefs.

Why should we follow a god without even a shred of proof....Explain!

.

My answer may shock you. Dont follow God without a shred of proof. I didnt. However, I received enough proof in my life to justify my belief in God. But what I call proof most likely wont suffice as proof for another. That happens individually. People can calluse their hearts and explain away the un-explainable if they wish, thats entirely up to them, or as atheists see it, deceive themselfs into believing in nothing.

But for me, what I believe in isnt just "nothing" to me. I have seen results - what you would call "coincedences" happen in my life...there comes a point when you just cant chalk it up to coindedence any longer. I do believe there is a further purpose for us beyond just feeding the worms once we die.

So my answer is you SHOULDNT blindly follow God without a shred of proof. Test God...demand proof. But dont calluse your heart and sear your spirit so much that you would never see the proof that you demand.

 

[Masquerouge]

People are not rational beings. Rationality is the basis of science, but this certainly does not mean that scientists behave in a rational manner in their daily lives.
Consequently, I see the respect of other people's beliefs as a respect of their humanity. In the same way that you accept your friends or your family sometimes behave irrationaly because yourself are not exempt of irrational behavior, you should also accept people having faith even if it's not rational.
Constantly reminding people that they do not act in a rational manner is both hypocritical and antisocial.

Perhaps I should express what I mean by irrational. It's not acting loony or behaving like a madman: it's more simply making decisions that are not fully grounded in a rational study of pros and cons. You might delude yourself that you're perfectly aware of what you're doing, but more often that not, you're not.

 

[civ2]

Eran of Arcadia
Everybody dies - the question is when how and after what kind of life.

Truronian
I'd rather believe a survived soldier than a scientist - the first won't get money for his "fairy tales".

HannibalBarka
Stop mocking me or I'll simply reply about you to "you-know-whom" - the almighty MODERATOR!
Then I'LL and not you.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Civ2, you 're going to be surprised, but under quantum physics, fitting an elephant through the eye of a needle isn't impossible, although highly unlikly to happen within the age of the universe. But if we wait say 10 power 100000 the age of the universe, it will almost surely happen

 

[civ2]

HannibalBarka
So???
That doesn't prove or disprove anything.

 

[warpus]

Coincidences happen all the time.. it doesn't mean that they're miracles.

I'll tell you about the most amazing coincidence that's ever happened to me.

This was a looong time ago. I was veeery very small.. in fact, I was a sperm. I was just swimming around and stuff, with millions of other sperm around me.

We all had one goal - to reach the egg and join with it to become a human being. My chances of accomplishing this task were incredibly slim. In fact, I would say that they were virtually non-exiistant. The odds of winning the lottery or getting struck by lightning were much much better!!

But then.. a miracle!$&!$

I was suddenly in the lead and I reached the egg first!

Surely this was too much of a coincidence not to be a miracle.. a supernatural miracle!

 

[MobBoss]

Perhaps I should express what I mean by irrational. It's not acting loony or behaving like a madman: it's more simply making decisions that are not fully grounded in a rational study of pros and cons. You might delude yourself that you're perfectly aware of what you're doing, but more often that not, you're not.

Delusion is a two edged sword. Believers and non-believers can both be just as delusional and blind to that which has occurred around them.

 

[civ2]

warpus
To be exact:
1. That wasn't yet YOU.
2. YES! The birth of a child is INDEED the GREATEST miracle ever!
Even bigger than the existance of the world.

NOTE: I'm not joking!

 

[puglover]

I believe in God mainly because of the philosophical evidences for a deity.

You might want to look at these links

Also, because of Biblical prophecies which were fufilled 400 years after their original prophet's death. Isaiah and other major prophets foretold the birthplace, geneology, ministry, persecution, death, and rise to power of Jesus Christ. These prophecies are too numerous and too specific to be mere coincidence IMO.

 

[Corlindale]

Many philosophers have attempted to prove the existence of God throughout history - none has suceeded.
Personally, I don't believe it is possible to prove the existance of God in any objectively valid way. An American philosopher named Fritjof Capra once stated a theory in which he illustrated the difference between objective, relative truth(scientific truths, not fully verifyable but enough for most purposes), which can be communicated to others via. language, and subjective, absolute truths(religious revelations, higher insight, "Nirvana"), which are much more profound but cannot be communicated to others.

Any "proof" of God's existance might well be verifyable to the one experiencing the religious revelation, but s/he would be unable to communicate this truth to others, as they would have to have a similar experience in order to gain the same insight.
These religious experiences might be signs of a God trying to contact people, but it could just as well be a trick of the subconscious mind. So even if a person is firmly convinced that s/he has seen/heard/experienced God, s/he cannot expect others to share this insight, and other people might be just as inclined to believe that the person is insane or mentally unbalanced(and they might be right).

Therefore I do not completely discard the idea of a higher being, as I recognize that many people have experienced what they believe to be the presence of a God. However, I also believe that since such experiences are essentially incommunicable and unverifiable they will only ever have significance on a subjective basis for the person experiencing them, and s/he cannot reasonably expect others to follow the moral guidelines that s/he believes God wishes him or herself to follow. That's one of the reason I find the idea of organized religion a bit silly. To me religion can never extend beyond the essential subjectiveness involved in its perception. I'm not religious now, as I have not seen or experienced anything which would lead me to believe. Even if I did believe, I would not expect others to follow me.

I don't think the fact that there are certain holes in human knowledge can serve as proof of the existence of a god. Many of the unexplicable phenomena which earlier lead to the belief in divine beings(thunder, the change of seasons, etc...) have been explained scientifically later in our history. I see no reason why that should essentially be any different about current holes in our knowledge.
Besides, the act of introducing a God to explain such phenomena will often cause more problems that it solves: "The Universe exists = God created the universe" is a classic argument, but what does it really change? What about the existance of God? And if God can have existed forever, why not the universe in the first place? The only escape a theist can use here is the good old "The full concept of God is incomprehensible to human understanding". But if that is so, how can mere humans tell what God does or does not want us to do? Then we hit the wall of subjective truth again.

 

[JerichoHill]

Curt,

try this.

1) According to physics, we cannot create something out of nothing
2) Therefore, there must have been matter present before the big bang, however small.
3) Since we must start somewhere, this something is timeless and eternal, hence "god"


EDIT: On philosophy, to the poster above, Kierkergaard did a pretty darn good job

 

[MobBoss]

This was a looong time ago. I was veeery very small.. in fact, I was a sperm. I was just swimming around and stuff, with millions of other sperm around me.

Your logic is flawed. You were not anymore a sperm than you were an egg waiting for a sperm.

Your humanization of a sperm is, well, for lack of a better word...silly.

 

[Corlindale]

EDIT: On philosophy, to the poster above, Kierkergaard did a pretty darn good job

I am not sure I am familiar with the exact proof he has phrased, but wasn't Kierkegaard rather focused on the concept of subjective truth, and of believing despite lack of concrete evidence? I think he uses the expression "jumping out in 30,000 fathoms of water" about the leap of faith it requires to believe. Kierkegaard was also quite sceptical about organized religion and the established church, even though he was a Christian.

 

[puglover]

Corlindale:

You're right. We have no "proof" of God's existence. However, I can't imagine the universe without a first-cause. In one of Thomas Aquanis' essays, everything around us can possibly be in a state of non-being, therefore at some point it would be logical to assume everything was in a state of non-being. Thus there must have been something to "be" when everything else was at that time "non-being." There must have been one push, one cause, that would bring about the existence of our physical universe.

And even if this doesn't convince you, I admire your open-mindedness. As I like to say, the smart atheist calls himself agnostic. Even the non-theist can't disprove God.

 

[Corlindale]

You're right. We have no "proof" of God's existence. However, I can't imagine the universe without a first-cause. In one of Thomas Aquanis' essays, everything around us can possibly be in a state of non-being, therefore at some point it would be logical to assume everything was in a state of non-being. Thus there must have been something to "be" when everything else was at that time "non-being." There must have been one push, one cause, that would bring about the existence of our physical universe.

But this does not seem to take into account that the Universe(in some form or other) might have existed forever. An eternal universe doesn't need a first cause.

 

[puglover]

But this does not seem to take into account that the Universe(in some form or other) might have existed forever. An eternal universe doesn't need a first cause.

What in the universe is eternal? What have we seen that would lead you to such a conclusion?