Serious question about proof of God.....

[Logical]

Is there really any proof God exists? Or is it 100% just faith?

I know about the bible but is there any writings in the bible that proves it is made by anyone that was not just a mortal? Are there stories or predictions that proves that it is special.

I would love to see if there is some incident or story that proves that God is real or that the bible was not written by people.

[hedgehog]

1. Whenever I hear a question like this, I recall the words of the great Captain Kirk:

"Why would God need a star ship?"

Anything you could prove the existence of wouldn't be G-d.

[ZombieHorde]

2. I don't think there is any scientific proof,

but many people don't think very highly of scientific proof.

Many people like scientific proof, but also believe their own feelings toward a subject is also valid proof.

[patrice]

5. What we call reality is comprised of both (and more), so the questions are about how much

of which relative to how much of the other, and whether anyone is admitting that or not. Then, even if you have a pretty valid grasp of reason:feeling, there's always the question of whether that perception is valid or not, something that even Science at it's best makes no absolute claim on.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Agreed. Plus their own experience.

There have been times when I've believed in Neptune. Usually during his less happy moments.
Seriously, though, it depends on one's individual idea of the meaning of the word god. I can see Nature as a synonym for god. I can see evolution as god. These are things that are greater than the individual and the temporal nature of the individual.
I can't believe in God the Creator if I don't believe in creation. I can't believe in a willful god, because that would make him human. I can accept nature as being omnipotent though.

[JNelson6563]

3. The existence of any gods cannot be proven.

It's a faith thing rooted in emotion based thinking.

Julie

[Starboard Tack]

4. If there were proof either way, then belief would become knowledge.

Stories prove nothing unless you believe the stories.

[rrneck]

19. If you know you believe, that's knowledge. nt

[Starboard Tack]

22. Very true and if you believe you know, that's belief. nt.

[Marrah_G]

6. I don't believe there is any proof

IMHO, it's 100% faith

[Swede Atlanta]

7. It is not possible to prove the existence of "God" using empirical scientific methodology...

Even as a Christian, I recognize that whether God exists or not is a matter of faith.

Many will claim that the stories of miracles proves God's existence. Others will say that they can "feel" God in their lives. Others yet will say that they prayed for an outcome such as cure from an ailment and the fact they recovered from the ailment is proof. The list goes on and on.

There are some in the Intelligent Design community that claim that the wonder of the universe and life establishes that life was not just a matter of survival of the fittest a la Darwin but rather the result of an ordered development.

These are still all theories. There is no empirical evidence of the existence of God or of God working in our world.

I am often disappointed at DU members that attack those that believe in a higher power for believing in magic, having feeble minds, etc. I am the first to challenge anyone who uses their belief system to attempt to impose their values on others be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Tao, Hindu, etc.

[patrice]

8. How could anything even remotely approaching what a God would be be "prove -able"?

Even Science does not claim to prove anything. It simply identifies probabilities in support or non-support of __________ (whatever).

In re The Bible, like all words, it/they are tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo often mistaken for what the/any words simply refer to. The words and the phenomenology are NOT the same thing.

[Marrah_G]

9. I don't believe there is any proof

IMHO, it's 100% faith. I also don't think there is anything wrong with that as long as the person is not trying to make others conform to his beliefs.

[cbayer]

11. What do you think?

[Logical]

12. I want any evidence available to research it.

[cbayer]

14. I am not sure what you mean by this.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? What kind of research do you want to do?

[Logical]

15. I just want to see what proof of God people have available. What makes people believe like they do.

[cbayer]

16. Those are really separate questions, aren't they?

You, as well as most people, believe in things they can't really prove. I love. I grieve. I believe that we are not the top of the universal food chain.

I can't prove any of it to you, but I believe it.

Science and religion work on different platforms, but they are not mutually exclusive. To try to apply the tools of one to the other is futile, imo.

[rrneck]

17. +1000

They don't call it the human condition for nothing.

[Ezlivin]

13. In my final year of seminary

...in a course that most students dreaded, Systematic Theology, the professor challenged us to prove the validity of Christianity. The 30-40 students were quick to fill the blackboard with all of the evidence they could recall. I felt confident (I majored in Philosophy and Apologetics, the defending of the faith.)

Much to our horror, the professor proceeded to strike through every phrase/sentence on the board, providing solid reasons why it didn't differentiate Christianity from any other religion with similar claims. The last bit of evidence remaining on the board was "500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection."

He asked us, "Who were these witnesses?"

We knew: Only existing believers, no non-believers or those outside the faith.

He struck this line line of "evidence", looked at us and said, "You choose to believe in Christianity because of faith, not evidence."

I believe in the existence of many things that are completely invisible to me: radio waves, sound waves, oxygen, infrared radiation and electrons.

If there were indeed evidence for an invisible god it would be as clear as the moon in the night sky, as easily proved as the invisible things I already believe in.

[Logical]

25. Wow, interesting! Thanks for sharing it! n-t

[Gman]

26. Very well stated

thanks.

[rrneck]

18. There is no empirical proof.

Nor does there have to be for God to exist. Belief confers existence, just not physical existence.

[malthaussen]

21. "Is the thought of a unicorn a real thought?"

One of my favorite questions.

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

20. You're talking about a subject that has been around since the written word

Actually, you're talking about two: is there proof this god-thing exist, and what constitutes "proof" anyway?

The literature is what one might call vast. So is the literature refuting it.

Bottom line: existance cannot be proven, any more than non-existance can be proven. Those people who say "God does not exist" are making a statement of faith logically indistinguishable from "God does exist."

-- Mal

[spin]

23. Good point. (n/t)

[rug]

24. Instead of discussing the existence or non-existence of God, they have decided to fight for it.

God exists by two falls.

[tiny elvis]

27. proofs and axioms remain subject to agreement amongst authority

across all fields
the field of motivating and manipulating masses of people is no way kin to math and physics

a god is a person
a greater person and perfect person exist in the way that perfect geometric or engineering models exist
all those models are useful and subjectively essential; they are not nothing
buddha and christ were not and are not material
the models are important enough for people to invest themselves in realizing those models

are things immaterial real? they have real effects
i know that my argument also says that bugs bunny is real, though not significant
does that need explaining?

does this begin to prove anything?

[spin]

28. Perhaps the best explanation of God is found in Star Wars ...

The Force

"Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together."
―Obi-Wan Kenobi —

The Force was a metaphysical, binding, and ubiquitous power that held enormous importance for both the Jedi and Sith monastic orders.

Known as the Way in ancient times,[1] the Force was viewed in many different aspects, including, but not limited to, the light side, the dark side, the Unifying Force, and the Living Force.

The first two aspects were concerned with the moral compass of the Force, as manifested by the conduct and emotions of living creatures who were themselves part of the fabric of the Force. The light side of the Force was the facet aligned with compassion, selflessness, self-knowledge and enlightenment, healing, mercy and benevolence, while the dark side of the Force was the element aligned with hatred, fear, covetousness, anger, aggression, jealousy and malevolence.

The latter two aspects were defined by prominent Jedi philosophies: The Unifying Force essentially embraced space and time in its entirety while the Living Force dealt with the energy of living things. Though the Force was categorized in this way, there were no specific abilities or powers that were only usable by a follower of a different path of the Force; the Force partially existed inside the life forms that used it, and drew energy from their emotions.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Force

Philosophy and religion in Star Wars

George Lucas' creation of the Star Wars saga was influenced by certain elements widespread in mythology, philosophy.

Elements of Star Wars have been compared to practices and beliefs in many major religions, including Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism[1]. Conversely, concepts from the films have also been used to highlight philosophical issues in the areas of ethics, metaphysics, truth, and faith. For example, The Dharma of Star Wars (2005) uses tropes from the Star Wars franchise to explain Buddhism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_religion_in_Star_Wars

FEELING THE FORCE
John C. McDowel

***snip***

A COMPLEX WEB

In Star Wars the theme of responsibility for the life-­affirming care of all things makes sense through the surrounding and binding presence of the Force in and to all things. All things are symbionts with the Force and therefore one another, interconnected in some way in a complex web, and consequently to exploit any aspect of that arrangement for one’s own gain is to significantly risk the delicate balance of life.

Described in this way, there appears to be more similarity between Lucas’ Force and certain Christian understandings of God’s presence than is admitted by those who are worried about its pan­theistic quality. Obi-Wan’s teaching that the Force ‘surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together’ (ANH) strikingly evokes Pauline imagery of ‘one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all’ (Eph. 4:6). When Christians read the agency of God in terms of God’s presence in Jesus Christ (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16) the will of the Creator is understood to have saving significance for all things. This idea shapes our understanding not merely of the intrinsic value and dignity of human creatures but also of the non-human creation, thereby resulting in a theologically informed ethic that recognises and acts for the flourishing of the non-human creation. Abuse of human and non-human creation, then, disrupts the proper and fruitful associations of interdependent relations among God’s creatures. And, finally, we must recognise that the Holy Spirit is the ongoing pres­ence of the cosmic and intimate Creator making all things new. ‘Clearly,’ argues Bryan Stone, ‘the Holy Spirit does bear some resemblance to the Force of Star Wars.’[10] Christians who unknowingly affirm dualistic cosmologies, and who construe salvation in terms of being saved from the world for another world, miss this.


The latter two aspects were defined by prominent Jedi philosophies: The Unifying Force essentially embraced space and time in its entirety while the Living Force dealt with the energy of living things. Though the Force was categorized in this way, there were no specific abilities or powers that were only usable by a follower of a different path of the Force; the Force partially existed inside the life forms that used it, and drew energy from their emotions.
http://www.bethinking.org/culture-worldview/intermediate/feeling-the-force-star-wars-and-spiritual-truth.htm

Just tossing this into the mix because Star Wars is to a great degree based on the study of mythology by Joseph Campbell. I am more of a fan of Joseph Campbell than the Star Wars movies.

Joseph Campbell

***snip***

Film

George Lucas was the first Hollywood filmmaker to credit Campbell's influence. Lucas stated following the release of the first Star Wars film in 1977 that its story was shaped, in part, by ideas described in The Hero with a Thousand Faces and other works of Campbell's. The linkage between Star Wars and Campbell was further reinforced when later reprints of Campbell's book used the image of Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker on the cover.[36] Lucas discusses this influence at great length in the authorized biography of Joseph Campbell, A Fire in the Mind:

I [Lucas] came to the conclusion after American Graffiti that what's valuable for me is to set standards, not to show people the world the way it is...around the period of this realization...it came to me that there really was no modern use of mythology...The Western was possibly the last generically American fairy tale, telling us about our values. And once the Western disappeared, nothing has ever taken its place. In literature we were going off into science fiction...so that's when I started doing more strenuous research on fairy tales, folklore, and mythology, and I started reading Joe's books. Before that I hadn't read any of Joe's books...It was very eerie because in reading The Hero with a Thousand Faces I began to realize that my first draft of Star Wars was following classic motifs...so I modified my next draft [of Star Wars] according to what I'd been learning about classical motifs and made it a little bit more consistent...I went on to read 'The Masks of God' and many other books.[37]

It was not until after the completion of the original Star Wars trilogy in 1983, however, that Lucas met Campbell or heard any of his lectures.[38] The 1988 documentary The Power of Myth was filmed at Lucas' Skywalker Ranch. During his interviews with Bill Moyers, Campbell discusses the way in which Lucas used The Hero's Journey in the Star Wars films (IV, V, and VI) to re-invent the mythology for the contemporary viewer. Moyers and Lucas filmed an interview 12 years later in 1999 called the Mythology of Star Wars with George Lucas & Bill Moyers to further discuss the impact of Campbell's work on Lucas' films.[39] In addition, the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution sponsored an exhibit during the late 1990s called Star Wars: The Magic of Myth, which discussed the ways in which Campbell's work shaped the Star Wars films.[40] A companion guide of the same name was published in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

Of course the existence of God or The Force is beyond our current level of understanding just as dark energy and dark mass currently are. However, we do have some scientific evidence that dark energy and dark mass do exist which is more than we can say for God.

[rug]

29. That sounds like the Eighth Dynamic of Scientology.

"The eighth dynamic is the urge toward existence as INFINITY. The eighth dynamic is commonly supposed to be a Supreme Being or Creator. It is correctly defined as infinity. It actually embraces the allness of all. "

http://learn.scientology.org/wis4_12.htm

[spin]

39. Interesting. I have never really studied Scientology. (n/t)

[rug]

40. Me neither. But this sounds like a religion that doesn't have a god.

[humblebum]

30. If you can objectively prove that God exists or that the Bible was not

penned by human hands, then you are one up on Christians because neither is accepted by Christians. Any evidence of the existence of God is subjective, and it is accepted belief that the humans who wrote Scripture were inspired by God in their writings.

[Rod Mollise]

31. Nope.

No, there is no evidence god exists. Never has been. HOWEVER...just because he/she/it has no objective reality, that doesn't mean he/she/it has no subjective, psychological reality. Not real enough for you? That god is real enough to run the whole Republican party.

[dimbear]

32. Serious answer: the best indication ever IMHO that there is a god

is Ramanujan. He was nothing short of a miracle.

Understand of course that I am an atheist. The best evidence for there being any god at all is for a particular Hindu god.

This should be taught in every Sunday school. I can't understand why folks don't jump on it.

Of course if you insist on Christian inspirations, go to the poetry of William Blake. Angels brought it to him, or so he said.

[rug]

38. You made me look him up.

Are you talking about the mathematician Ramanujan?

[dimbear]

41. Absolutely. An astonishing prodigy.

Just barely within the bounds of the possible. Why one doesn't hear about him in Sunday school escapes me. Seems to make the Hindu pantheon by far the most likely 'religious explanation.'

[rug]

42. Amazing life. He really should be more widely known.

[stopbush]

33. "It's not a lie if you believe it's true." - Geroge Costanza

[gordianot]

34. I tend to favor Robert Heinlein on this "I and Thou art God".

Sort of a Zen question who created God?

[stopbush]

35. If the ancient Egyptians had had nukes, we'd all be worshipping Ra these days.

[2on2u]

36. +1, and I am pretty sure that the 25 MILLION who perished in a horrible manner (bubonic

plague) petitioned the church and their boss pretty heavily. Could have been on vacation, perhaps he just didn't care.... a great flood might have been more humane.

[Logical]

37. Great Point! n-t

[klatu]

43. Proof, but not in the Bible or from Traditon . . .

Anyone seriously looking for more than a vacuous claim subject to unending argument won't find it in the bible, which is incomplete anyway, or from existing religious tradition built upon an all too human and fallible theological foundation. But it does exists!
For what science and religion, not to mention the rest of us, thought impossible has now happened. History has its first literal, testable and fully demonstrable proof for faith.

The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ is published on the web. Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined and predictable experience and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to real Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence and ultimate proof!

Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, to search and discover this direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigns our moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way.

To test or not to test, that is the question?
More info at http://www.energon.org.uk,
http://soulgineering.com/2011/05/22/the-final-freedoms/

[rrneck]

44. "...testable by faith..."