Proof Of God's Existence !

Great argumentation ! Printed it already !

Just wanted to drop a note that while googling for a Fox news story I saw last night about a kabbalistic sect in Israel requesting payment for prayers ("pay for prayer khabbala" was my search terms) this thread shows up, twice:

Proof Of Gods Existence ! - Below Top Secret General Discussion
that is Why prayer has been proved to affectorganic tissue in double Blind ... I would immange in a Golden Heaven a guy would pay through The noise for a ...
70.86.59.151/thread143790/pg1 - 126k

Proof Of Gods Existence ! - Below Top Secret General Discussion
that is Why prayer has been proved to affectorganic tissue in double Blind experiments. ... when things work nicely we tend to pay more attention to it. ...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread143790/pg1 - 99k

The 'burden' of proving God's existence does not lie in the court of the soul who senses said existence. Conversely, the opposite proof is also not the responsibility of those who sense nothing beyond themselves and see nature and the cosmos as inanimate and/or insentient (and by default, 'unaware').

If 'God' exists, then surely any 'burdens' toward proving God are responsibly met with the same seriousness that would be inherent to such an all-pervasive conscious entity capable of originating both cause and effect.

However, if one seeks 'proof' of any given point of questionability, then one will find 'proof'--either in favor of or against. If one seeks reinforcement for delusion self-created for the purpose of sustaining attachments to comfort and false security, one will find 'proof' for that, too. And if one rejects a certain possibility of any sort, then 'proof' does not exist.

Einstein said 'A person starts to live when he can live outside himself.' The vast majority of the population have yet to understand something so seemingly nonsensical--like goldfish, the human perspective is much like the view from within a fishbowl. Our skin protects us from infection and disease--but it also serves for our survival by providing a safe enclosure for our various inner components (I speak abstractly, not materially) until such time arrives that unity is first experienced on a personal level. In order to think and live 'outside the box' one must first concieve that the box exists and limits. Perception leads to overcoming the boundaries once they are detected, and once outside, it becomes clear that unity is a universal principle and very well may be both the primary law as well as the governing force of same.

Einstein also said 'Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.' Many of us do, indeed, look deep into nature, yet we place our observations opposite of our perspective, rather than letting go of our personal awareness of self vs. all else (or even, self vs. God) in favor of the free flight toward unity and true understanding, both inherently simple and endlessly profound. It is, at first, a literal 'leap of faith,' capable of making the bravest man swallow his own heart for breakfast--but, in the end, it is the only means for survival.


To borrow from Einstein once more (a personal hero, I must confess, and someone who gave voice to many of my thoughts before I knew myself or discovered him), concerning religion:

'My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.'
'A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.'

Religion is made by man, for man, and is about man--certainly it is an approach to reality and God--but it is only the very beginning of a path that has been numbered 'one per each soul' and often times begins outside one's self--but if truly followed and not paved (invented) on a step-by-step basis--it always turns and returns inward until a certain goal is reached. This goal is not religious but rather private and of an ethereal freedom--Unity with God. Most religions serve this as their aim and many declare their singularity viability in providing a means to accomplishing this for the individual in a group setting. That is not unity--physical congregation is an illusion set forth as unity but it maintains the separateness more effectively than any other function of human society. In the terms of religion, itself, religion is actually the devil so vehemently warned about and externalized by its proponents.

God is pure spirit--ultimate and original consciousness--source and origin of all things--God is a chemist, a physicist, a poet, and a mathematician--as well as a nursing mother and a nightlight in the dark. God is the cosmos, God is in an ant, God is a leaf, and God is in a rock.

Can I prove these things? Not at all. Do I desire to attempt to prove anything about God? Not at all.
God requires nothing of the sort from any of us--all He requires is an open mind and willingness to learn.

Information is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom. But the first leads to the last if one will follow truth. And that is the literal definition of 'faith.'

[edit on 11/24/2005 by queenannie38]

You have voted BaastetNoir for the Way Above Top Secret award

That was an awesome point you made.

Its almost like they are grouping santa and jesus for the kids.
What happens to Jesus what the kids find out santa isnt real?
Hmm


Im not paranoid. I just know that everything that happens is either of God or satan. Mankind was made to serve, and so we serve one or the other.

Not sure if this adds anything to the discussion, but I am strongly reminded by this post of a novel I read last month, called "Calculating God" by Robert Sawyer. Very interesting read, where the author explores some of the ideas that Truthisoutthere presents. The book is almost like reading a giant debate on intelligent design.

Im not paranoid. I just know that everything that happens is either of God or satan. Mankind was made to serve, and so we serve one or the other.

IF we were made to serve, than why did we get free will?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sidenote, you cannot really prove or disprove the existence of a religion, that is why it is called faith. you cannot know anything about God, because you cannot actually know She/He/It/Disembodied Etherial Form exists because there is no undeniable proof.

How do you know God is real?

How do you know that the Empire State Building had a builder?

The building itself is proof of his existence. You cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch him but you know that he exists because the building is there!

In the same way, we know that God has built the earth.

Originally posted by just me 2
How do you know God is real?

How do you know that the Empire State Building had a builder?

The building itself is proof of his existence. You cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch him but you know that he exists because the building is there!

In the same way, we know that God has built the earth.

But we also have documented proof of the builder's existence, and nobody denies that guy's existence. The belief in Gods is not universal, and there are actual witnesses to its construction. The proof of God is circumstancial at best.

Firstly, i admire your passion on the topic but I have to say, what they pass off as science in these links is more merely using scientific fact to speculate. like "what if the sun absorbed light instead of emitting it? IT doesnt so God made it! "- that kind of logic is childish to say the least, what if this or that happened, if it happened it happened and the univese would be that way at least that one universe.

Originally posted by Truthisoutthere

"If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron then all neutrons would have become protons are vice versa. Say goodby, to chemistry as we know it, and to life." Leslie, pp 34-40

So what! The nucleus of an atom will still contain protons and neutrons and all those that arent stable will disintegrate and all stable energy configurations will remain !

"The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid form than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to unique properties of the hydrogen atom." Leslie ,p 30

Havee you heard about the triple point of water ?? The tempereture would not be the same at all depths and thus freezes only on the top first before it reaches down. Nothing unique at all, take helium and freez it till its liquid it will flow upwards! That is more unique that ice being lighter than water.

"A remarkable feature of the Universe is its emptiness. Stars are extraordinarily distant from one another. However, were it not for these vast reaches of empty space, violent collisions between stars would be too frequent as to render the universe uninhabitable. The yet more frequent near-misses would detach planets from orbit about their suns, flinging them off into interstellar space where they would quickly cool to hundreds of degrees below zero." Greenstein's the Symbiotic Universe as quoted by

Perhaps this is the most crazy thing I've read so far in this thread, the universe though it may appear empty is not so. Their are millions of dark stars and other dark matter that make up most of space, they are vital in overall balance of the gravitational forces in the universe. Also the stars are not just in some crazed mish-mash they are arranged according to the laws of the universe and are affected by the forces exerted by them by their neighbours. Another point to remember is that stars do sometimes crash into each other or planets get pulled out of their orbits, all these things happen just not very close by and not that regularly- Now you can thank GOD for that one.

Why not Buddha instead of Christ? Read their words. It should be obvious to anyone, Buddha doesn't want the job, Jesus Christ does.

First, Buddha never said he was GOD, he actually said he was just a man who attained enlightenment and wanted to spread what he had learnt to the rest of the people. Second, Buddha was never asked if he would help make a new universe and if he could help them at it. Lastly, the Buddhists believe in Karma that you fate is relative and just as christ said - As you sow so shall you reap.
The buddhists would welcome the end as they would finally be liberated form the endless births and deaths.
This insinuation that Buddha is some object of mockery is in itself Un-christian like and I can be sure that God would never be pleased if you portray one of his own as such.

Once Christ exists, He will expand to fill all of time and space plus every part of all the other dimensions Quantum Physics has discovered. It is the normal nature of Life to overflow whatever container its kept in.

At this point Science has become religion and religion science.
Quantum physics ? Is that written in the bible ??

You can also be sure when it comes to the creation of the Universe, and the evolution of Life, Christ continually, "stacks the deck" to guarantee His permanent existence.

Isnt gambling a SIN and as it is why would Christ gamble ?
Also if he "stacks the deck" to guarentee his... isnt that cheating which is also a SIN ??
Why would you say that Christ is Sining ?
I got too confused after this point and I am still marvelling at you deft use of scientific terminology into a theological explanation !!

just don't bust a vein in frustration IAF101

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
It will always surprise me how so many people say God does NOT exist, yet present no proof, no proof has ever been presented that GOD does NOT exist, yet ... the same people that have NO proof that GOd does NOT exist have the nerve to ridicule, criticize , mock, those who Believe that God DOES EXIST....

The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim. (God Exists)

I believe pink unicorns exist. Prove to me they don't. See, it's up to me to prove that they do exist, if I wish to make such a claim, as the author of this thread does.

Someone saying that God does not exist, is simply a statement of lack of proof. Their belief is that God does not exist. I don't hear people saying "I have proof that God doesn't exist." If they say that, they're mistaken.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care about anyone's beliefs, but when they say they have 'proof', then mutter a bunch of assumptions and beliefs, with no proof at all, I do think it's a bit strange.

After all, why must anyone prove that God exists?

Originally posted by jake1997

That was an awesome point you made.

Its almost like they are grouping santa and jesus for the kids.

Can you prove that Santa doesn't exist?



[edit on 5-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

But we also have documented proof of the builder's existence,...

We also have proof of God's existance~ The Bible says He does! That is all the proof I need.

How do you think that the earth and all of it's millions of life forms got here?

Originally posted by just me 2
We also have proof of God's existance~ The Bible says He does! That is all the proof I need.

That's not 'proof'. That's just choosing to believe written documentation that others wrote, whom you do not even know.

There are many books that say many things--are the claims made therein 'proven,' then? Why believe one book and not another?

My point is not one of saying 'God does not exist,' but rather one of asking if the proof for you is in words or in your heart? Do you trust what is within you or do you trusted a printed, bound, collection of words and ideas?

Something in your heart cannot be proven to anyone else. It might be shown, but it cannot be firmly ascribed to, in written or spoken words, as far as bringing someone else to the point of being 'convinced.'

Originally posted by just me 2

We also have proof of God's existance~ The Bible says He does! That is all the proof I need.

How do you think that the earth and all of it's millions of life forms got here?

first, i don't take a book, call it fact, and use it as proof. the bible has NOTHING to back itself up besides itself. why do you take the bible as proof? it's a mix of fictional stories (like the story of jonah), adapted stories from other religions (the flood story is an adaptation of part of the epic of gilgamesh) and nonfiction (lineages, the letters were really philosophical letters written to people).

i think the earth got here because a cloud of dust compacted
i think it's lifeforms evolved from earlier lifeforms, and said earlier lifeforms did the same, and at some point complex organic molecules came together in such a way that the formed a living organism.

now just me 2:
how would god have gotten here?
WHY is the bible true?
WHAT proves its truth?
IF the bible is true, WHY is it the only true word of god?

Originally posted by Truthisoutthere
The Anthropic Principle ...

There's no point in going through the list. The only thing the anthropic principle proves is that if things were different, they would not be the same as they are.

This is only a "proof" of god if you start by assuming there is a purpose for things being the way they are, which of course implies a purpose giver. All you've really done is started by assuming that there is a purpose giver (god), and then concluded that there must be god after pages of elaborate minutia.

You could have simplified the process by stating; God exists, therefor god exists.

Originally posted by just me 2
We also have proof of God's existance~ The Bible says He does! That is all the proof I need.

...and it's the only proof your going to get, so relish it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by just me 2

We also have proof of God's existance~ The Bible says He does! That is all the proof I need.

How do you think that the earth and all of it's millions of life forms got here?

first, i don't take a book, call it fact, and use it as proof. the bible has NOTHING to back itself up besides itself. why do you take the bible as proof? it's a mix of fictional stories (like the story of jonah), adapted stories from other religions (the flood story is an adaptation of part of the epic of gilgamesh) and nonfiction (lineages, the letters were really philosophical letters written to people).

i think the earth got here because a cloud of dust compacted
i think it's lifeforms evolved from earlier lifeforms, and said earlier lifeforms did the same, and at some point complex organic molecules came together in such a way that the formed a living organism.

now just me 2:
how would god have gotten here?
WHY is the bible true?
WHAT proves its truth?
IF the bible is true, WHY is it the only true word of god?

Here is an excerpt from an excellent article that explains how and why we should trust in the Bible.

If you want to read it in it's entirity, click here:
www.leaderu.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.leaderu.com...


Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?
Jimmy Williams

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
How do we know that the Bible we have today is even close to the original? Haven't copiers down through the centuries inserted and deleted and embellished the documents so that the original message of the Bible has been obscured? These questions are frequently asked to discredit the sources of information from which the Christian faith has come to us.

Three Errors To Avoid
Do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the documents, with the intent of attempting to prove the inspiration or infallibility of the documents. Do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.
When considering the original documents, forget about the present form of your Bible and regard them as the collection of ancient source documents that they are.
Do not start with modern "authorities" and then move to the documents to see if the authorities were right. Begin with the documents themselves.
Procedure for Testing a Document's Validity
In his book, Introduction in Research in English Literary History, C. Sanders sets forth three tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism.[1] These tests are:

Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).
It might be noteworthy to mention that Sanders is a professor of military history, not a theologian. He uses these three tests of reliability in his own study of historical military events.

We will look now at the bibliographical, or textual evidence for the Bible's reliability.


The Old Testament
For both Old and New Testaments, the crucial question is: "Not having any original copies or scraps of the Bible, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we do have so they give us a true, undistorted view of actual people, places and events?"

The Scribe
The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D.

The Massoretic Text
During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

The Dead Sea Scrolls
In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea.
The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.

These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition."[2]

The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."[3]


The Septuagint
The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is often referred to as the LXX because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria around 200 B.C. The LXX appears to be a rather literal translation from the Hebrew, and the manuscripts we have are pretty good copies of the original translation.

Conclusion
In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."[4]

The New Testament
The Greek Manuscript Evidence
There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials.
Papyrus and Parchment

During the early Christian era, the writing material most commonly used was papyrus. This highly durable reed from the Nile Valley was glued together much like plywood and then allowed to dry in the sun. In the twentieth century many remains of documents (both biblical and non-biblical) on papyrus have been discovered, especially in the dry, arid lands of North Africa and the Middle East.

Another material used was parchment. This was made from the skin of sheep or goats, and was in wide use until the late Middle Ages when paper began to replace it. It was scarce and more expensive; hence, it was used almost exclusively for important documents.

Examples

1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus

These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.).[5]

2. Older Papyrii


Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded.[6]

3. Oldest Fragment

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.[7]

4. This manuscript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.


Versions (Translations)
In addition to the actual Greek manuscripts, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syria, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, as well as 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some of which date back almost to Jerome's original translation in 384 400 A.D.

Church Fathers
A further witness to the New Testament text is sourced in the thousands of quotations found throughout the writings of the Church Fathers (the early Christian clergy [100-450 A.D.] who followed the Apostles and gave leadership to the fledgling church, beginning with Clement of Rome (96 A.D.).
It has been observed that if all of the New Testament manuscripts and Versions mentioned above were to disappear overnight, it would still be possible to reconstruct the entire New Testament with quotes from the Church Fathers, with the exception of fifteen to twenty verses!

all that says is that there have been few changes to the bible...

all you've proved is that its close to the original text...
you haven't proved anything else

still waiting for someone to tell me why the bible, arguably the most violent and smut filled document in history, is an accurate document

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
all you've proved is that its close to the original text...

Actually that hasn't been proven. What was proven is that certain books of the Bible (mostly the OT) have been maintained with reasonable accuracy over the past 2000 years or so. We have no idea whether such fidelity existed in earlier times, nor is there any reason to suspect the same care was given to texts that were being written for the first time in the first and second century.

We know from the writings of the church fathers that competing versions of many of the New Testament documents were floating around.

For example, there was a competing version of the Gospel of Matthew that did not include the first 2 chapters (the birth story), and had a totally different spin on Jesus - he had a normal conception, was just a wise holy man in that Gospel who was god's adopted (not begotton) son for his righteousness. He was not sacrificed to atone for sin, nor was he miraculous. This competing version was written in Aramaic - implying it was much closer to the original version.

Proof of God's existance is everywhere, however a mind that chooses between what it feels is good and what it feels is bad is still choosing to deny consciously what is bad, and conditions itself (mind) to filter out the "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil", and since that mind has chosen what is evil, they will continue to be inept to percieve what has been already percieved as evil, be it true or not. Fear will be what binds all that people don't like, and file it away in a mind that can only hold so much. You defrag your computer, but never apply the same process to your own personal "Central Processing Unit". So: Slower and Slower you remove yourself from reality, because you have chosen not to acknowledge portions of your own existance.