Prove to me.... ( Archived) (622)

That's more believable than an all powerful being that couldn't find a pencil so he had man do it for him.

We have to many cultures that percieve a higher power as a different enigma. My understanding of religion is vague, what is not understandable to me is the different gods for different cultures. The scientific explanation removes the faith behind religion, but is more understandable to me,,just my opinion

1) Would you say the same to those who have set out to prove that other beliefs held were "not" accurate? I am asking you to prove that my belief in the existence of God is invalid, a perfectly acceptable scientific challenge.

2) This matter why?

3) Again what does this matter? but for the sake of arguement and clarity I will point out my second line of proof... which denotes that my belief of God is such that God is omnipresent.

Thanks for the listing,

I believe in god as something that is much greater than myself and something I will never fully comprehend. My definition is based on what I know of physics and life.

Thanks Buzzy. Very much appreciate the time taken to voice your thoughts for me. It does pose an interesting scientific delima doesn't it.

I use the word god in a non-christian manner. I mean it generically to mean much greater than me. The alien theory is valid.

Well the trouble there is the defense that even if the word of God were to be found in the bible or other text that has been in the hands and minds of man... the words that may have been expressed would be found from the translations of countless individuals who have copied by hand down through centuries and therefore leaves room to alteration by the intention or even accidental misinterpritation of man etc. so it becomes excusable no matter if God is believed to be defined through the bible or not.

Sorry it just doesn't offer proof to me, but I thank you for the thought and time taken to offer the posting.

God could also be viewed as a bad parent. Dumped us here and abandoned us.

Not to worry Buzzy.

Hi, Shed,

In thinking about your topic, one must first examine the word "proof". One online dictionary defines the word as:

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Break that down and we now have to decide if we are going to require evidence or if we will concede to an argument -- lacking in evidence, but seemingly compelling in nature to the point of concession.

I have always thought of "proof" as irrefutable evidence, leaving no room for doubt or error. This being my starting point, I believe that the burden of proof lies with those who claim that something DOES exist, rather than those who claim that something does NOT exist. I can prove (substantiate completely, provide evidence of) many things in my life, but I can't prove everything I might tell you about my history. If you want to believe me, if you take a leap of faith that I am honest and everything I tell you is the truth, you can do so and you won't require proof. But any skeptic is going to demand proof.

Using the definition of proof as evidence of an assertion, one cannot logically conclude that God exists. On the other hand, one might say "evidence is all around...trees, animals, flowers, sea, mountains, etc." The "proof" is everywhere, I'm told. Or is it just that nature is everywhere and there is no evidence that a god created these things? Leap of faith and a strong desire to take that leap are the basis for the belief in God and when one believes, no proof is needed.

I did a lousy job of answering your question, but it makes sense in MY mind, anyway! Cheers!