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

Well perhaps you should pick your allies a little more wisely next time.

OK Shedman here goes,first we have to establish then who is god before we can prove he is not there.SO is he a man,a woman an entity or what?Allah ,zeus,jehova or odin?

I posted this a couple of hours ago, to crotalus thread on Dawkins. I feel it is relevant in this thread also. It is by
By Dan Vander Lugt

Is it inconsistent, as Richard Dawkins claims, for believers in God to look for scientific explanations of natural things, if they don’t think it is necessary to seek scientific proof of God’s existence?

This is a classic example of comparing apples to oranges. Infinite Spirit can’t be examined the same way the physical world can.

According to the Bible, the characteristics of the physical universe have been shaped by God. As the apostle Paul writes, “God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20). Because the natural world has been created and designed by God, it reflects His power and divine nature. However, God is of an entirely different order of being. He is not physical, but Spirit, of a higher dimension of being that encompasses our universe but which cannot be directly observed and measured by the physical sciences.

But if God can’t be directly investigated by physical science, are there no compelling reasons to believe that He exists? Someone with a naïve faith in evolution might say there are no compelling reasons, but more objective scientists acknowledge that the rational basis for God’s existence is being continually strengthened as science progresses.

Even if it could be demonstrated at some future time that evolution is a seamless natural process with no “gaps” where God can be demonstrated to supernaturally intervene, atheists have to account for the components and circumstances that make the process possible. Physicists who believe in the probability of God’s existence don’t do so because of gaps in evolutionary theory, but because of the mind-boggling, overwhelming complexity of the circumstances within which natural macroevolution would have to occur.1

The fact that circumstances of such infinite, or nearly infinite, complexity exist as the necessary background to life implies design. The idea that the universe has no origin is a counterintuitive faith assumption, as everything in our experience that is complex is derived from something more complex. It’s hard to see how Dawkins and other atheists consider it more reasonable to believe that the infinite complexity of the natural world is rooted in chance.

The existence of randomness as part of the process of evolution within the space/time universe is not—as some atheists claim—evidence against design. Randomness itself appears to be an aspect of the design, making possible the development of self-aware, free beings (such as we are). Thus the existence of randomness and freedom within the context of natural law imply a much higher order of complexity than a mere “clockwork universe.”

So it isn’t unreasonable to believe in God, even if we can’t “explain” or “define” Him in scientific terms. The choices are to either take the mind-boggling complexity of a universe containing self-aware beings as mere accident, or to assume that the complexity we see within and around us is evidence of a supernatural God.

I have not had the pleasure of meeting you shedman. Greetings!

Wonderful comeback there...

I directed that towards wildflower, not you HL. You cant quote emoticons.

Wait, I thought we had to to not prove that he doesnt exist first?

I know you weren't talking to me krimsa.

Can we get the thread back on topic though?

I, like Shedman, would like to see the proof that there is
No God. Especially when scientists can not measure a Spirit being.

Bring it on, crot and Trish... Where is YOUR proof?

I have proof there IS a God, cos He's alive and well, living INSIDE me and many millions of others. He set it up so that only those who believe can have this experience. If you want the proof He has given, you must believe! Millions of supernaturally changed lives, do not LIE, there is your proof!
His Grace is truely Amazing!

Healthy Living please read some of the arguments against substantiating a negative premise.

First, I'm waiting for the obligatory "you can't prove a negative" (not true - it is certainly possible to prove a negative under some conditions).

Second, it depends on how you define your god. For instance, if your god has logically contradictory characteristics (for example, that it is both all-kind and all-horrible), then it can be disproved on logical grounds.

The Judeo-Christian god has some generally agreed-upon characteristics which are either logically problematic or impossible. For instance, if you believe God created Itself, you've got an obvious logical impossibility, since it would've had to exist in order to have created itself. Similarly, though perhaps less clearly, if you claim that your god is omnipotent, that means it is capable literally of doing things it is not capable of doing. Those are logically contradictory characteristics, so such a being could not exist.

So, in sum, it depends on how you define your god. Care to give that a try?