Proof that God Exist

House of Eratosthenes ^ | 12/20/2015 | Morgan Freeberg

[Fai Mao]

It’s an interesting summation of the argument. One might accuse Tipler of transmogrifying the dispute away from “Is there a God?” to “Is there a causative agent existing outside of space and time?” But if you’ve ever watched people wrestle with these accusations that the faithful are the ones displaying incompetence, you know that this is exactly what’s being debated. It’s chicken-and-egg, with “things that exist in space and time” being the egg.

[Fai Mao]

An interesting post from an interesting blog

[Bob434]

accept Christ as Savior- then a person will know God exists and not have to wonder any longer- God reveals His existence to those who humble themselves before Him

[dp0622]

great little article. they are teenage brats.

[Orangebowl]

I love this articles

[Moonman62]

Let’s define “God” as the “supernatural being who created the Universe.” That is, God is the cosmological singularity. To see this, unpack the definition of “God.” The word “supernatural” literally means “above nature,” or outside of space and time, and not subject to the laws of physics…the cosmological singularity is the cause of everything that exists, but is itself uncaused.

...

Looks like an argument for a Deist God, which a lot of religious people don’t like.

[Fhios]

Pascal’s wager

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

[Mechanicos]

Scientific Method, Statistical probability, etc tends to support the Existence of God and confirms the accuracy of his Word.

http://www.bibleevidences.com/
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/which-book.html
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html#SFB02

[Twinkie]

Some say there was a BIG BANG that caused creation;
but who or what caused the BIG BANG?

[chajin]

Looks like an argument for a Deist God, which a lot of religious people don't like.

I am desperately grading final papers this morning and can't get into this :-( but I would remind the faithful of Hebrews 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." (ESV)

One can demonstrate that God as "the cosmological singularity" probably exists; one cannot prove beyond doubt that God exists, because that would require experiencing God at God's level, which by definition is impossible--Diana Ross got to have two Supremes, while the rest of the universe only gets one, and so our experience of that One would always be at less than a Supreme level.

The essence of the gospel, however, is not that God exists, but that God's nature is such as to desire relationship with us, as individuals and as a unit (the church). It is that second assertion, that God "rewards those who seek Him," that cannot be proven nor presumed, only hoped for and experienced.

[metmom]

All of creation screams of God.

It’s not a matter of whether there is *proof* of God’s existence, as if only science is capable of proving He exists and without science, there is no proof.

It’s a matter of whether or not the person chooses to acknowledge that proof of God’s existence.

People don’t not believe because they can’t but because they won’t. Ability is never the issue. WILL is.

[metmom]

ping

[jaydee770]

The few self-identified “proud” athiests I’ve had the discussion with tend to fit the “bratty teenager” described in the article. My impression is that — if they choose the religious “model”, they have to deal with a lifetime/lifestyle full of bad decisions, transgressions and guilt. If they choose the scientific “model”, they can plausibly ignore and deny any personal culpability & responsibility for the choices they’ve made in life and suppress the guilt more easily.

Again, don’t know about all athiests, but the ones I’ve had this discussion with have all been consistent. You can tell them that the church is not a confined box full of perfect people but rather an open workshop for broken people... They don’t want to hear it.

[Agamemnon]

By definition the "atheist" has to be his own creator -- there is none greater than himself and his self-important ego, yet for all the complexity evident in the design, the "atheist" can tell you neither how nor when nor why he allegedly chose to design himself thusly.

And therein he ensnares his arrogance, stepping in his own incompetence, and as he tries to scrape the collective odoriferous mass off his shoe, I'll continue to just stand there and laugh at him.

FReegards!

[betty boop]

Great post, dear sister in Christ! Thank you so very much for the ping!

If you have the the time and interest, compare this text with The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Like the piece you drew me to, this article suggests that one of two things is the standard for judging actual human experience. Either that there is (1) a systematic rule of order that governs the universe, which is eternal in nature; or (2) some random natural cause (a self-contradicton in terms right there) that somehow produces everything productive in human order, personal or social, by pure chance, which somehow, in some unexplicated way (where is the evidence???) evolves into something meaningful in terms of human personal order. That is to say, the natural and constitutional order of living, free American citizens in general.

Which puts hypothesis (2) in conflict with hypothesis (1); but hypothesis (2) needs hypothesis (1) in order to find the ground on which it itself can logically stand.

That seems to be the very thing that the "scientistic, proselytizing types out there" seem to missing in their analyses. Indeed, this particular omission seems to be quite deliberate.

What this omission portends: Man is nothing more than his material body. And all of living Nature similarly reduces to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Especially including Man.

To me, such folks qualify as certifiably insane.

The problem is, modern American society evidently doesn't have a clue what to do about insane people. Indeed, many of them seem to occupy very highest status in the current so-called "government"....

Thanks to hear from you, dear friend. Have a merry, blessed Christmas! And may you and all your dear ones have a blessed, healthy, and prosperous New Year!

[metmom]

The “scientistic, proselytizing types out there” tend to make a lot of ASSumptions about their position presuming that they are givens not subject to challenge, and fail to see that they do the very thing they condemn.

Merry Christmas!!!! to you as well.

[BlueDragon]

I saws what you did there.

[Fightin Whitey]

That is funny. First Chuckle of the Day Award.

[YHAOS]

Yup, He does.

Thanks for all the BEEPs!