You have no Case for Christ until you can Prove God exists

[brandx1138]

Instead of quibbling over scripture and when, where or if Jesus said what, let's start at the beginning. Christians claim that Jesus is God, but who is this "God"? It means nothing to say that Jesus is God if you cannot define, locate, detect or explain God. So who would like to be the first to answer this call:

Prove God exists.

First you must do that, then we can talk about Jesus. If God cannot be proven to exist, then this whole forum is a waste of everyone's time.

[realthinker]

Just a little edit to clear something up, I believe this discussion is to give a case for a creator/God. I'm trying to start from the beginning. Here's a list of requirements that I think we could all agree on for the need of an ambiguous God:

1. A need for a beginning of everything
2. A need for a cause of this beginning
3. A need for this cause to be a creator with a consciousness
4. A need for this creator to be intelligent (not a kid that accidentally kicked his paints over and created the Mona Lisa)

To me this seems to be what you think you need to feel confortable.

No, this is what is required of a God by Christian definition. It would make me comfortable to know that this God exists, because I'm a Christian (and I already believe he does), but that doesn't override the points I've made.

Judge me by the merit of my statements, not by my beliefs.

Your beliefs inform your statements. Therefore your beliefs are at the very core of any judgment toward you.

If this is what is required of a God by Christian definition, then where does this definition come from? Once you realize that the source of this definition is based on nothing but retranslations, mistranslations, and nimble editing of stories about legends about myths....you'll discover that the foundation you once believed was made of stone upon which you've built your castle of beliefs is very much the stuff of vaporous smoke....blown very swiftly and forcefully up your unaware little backside.

Really, that's very poetic of you and everything, but if you're not going to add anything with a point to the debate other than your opinion of where I'm getting my conclusions, then I suggest not adding anything at all.

Tell me something, how do you actually know that there are black holes? How do you know there are galaxies besides our own? How do you know we're in a galaxy? How do you know the moon isn't made of cheese? How do you know "shooting stars" are really asteroids? You don't really do all of the experiments yourself, do you?

We accept ideas for which we've no direct experience because they fit into our understanding of the truth. Because they are not inconsistent with other things that we have experienced they are acceptable as part of our truth. The idea of black holes has persisted because it has not been shown, conclusively, to be inconsistent with other more firmly proven ideas and because it has lead to further understanding, or at least possible opportunities for that.

We know the moon is not cheese because we have a very clear understand of cheese and where it comes from, and we don't have that many cows, much less a way to hoist that much cheese. That idea is inconsistent with calculable ideas based on the measurable facts about milk, cheese, and gravity.

That being said, Einstein refused to believe that the universe had a beginning because of how inconvenient it would be to science. Ironically, his own findings and the data he accumulated from those findings helped the "Big Bang Pioneers" to reach their conclusion. I could say that they're a bunch of quacks listening to an old man who was obviously wrong to deny the universe started with the big bang, but where would that lead us?

That inconvenience Einstein was resistant to was that consistency of ideas. He went on to resolve that with mathematical proofs. Those proofs have been the foundation of other real reason that has produced any number of observable, tangible scientific advances.

The same could be said about Fred Hoyle, whose Steady State theory was disproved also, due to the noise the universe makes. Although he got that wrong (and died defending his position), his contributions to cosmology can't be overlooked. That said, even though he was wrong, would you call him a quack?

The aspects of his theory that have persisted are those that are consistent with other measurable facts and ideas consistent with those. That which has fallen away was shown to be inconsistent.

Do your beliefs not inform your conclusions and statements? Isn't that the way of the scientific method, coming up with a possible conclusion first (hypothesis) and finding out if the evidence backs it up?

You're being prejudice because of your beliefs (even in a hostile way), isn't that a little hypocritical?

And isn't that against the forum rules?

Where I get my conclusions from mean nothing. Read the last sentence of my last post: Judge me by the merit of my statements, not by my beliefs.

Can we please get back on topic now?

With regard to the topic, I think until you find an acceptable definition of God that is not the one supplied with the proposed attributes of Jesus you're going to get nowhere. Which is to say, you're going to get nowhere.

God is an idea, a concept, that has developed over generations as that something that satisfies all the holes in our understanding. God's attributes change according to what we understand. What makes it persistent is that it's the foundation of an age-old understanding of two things that cannot be experienced by mortals. Those are the origin of our universe and the disposition of our consciousness after death.

Until there is an alternative that offsets the other properties that belief in God brings -- the social aspects -- the idea will persist. That is, what religion brings to society is real, necessary, and critical to social advancement. Should god be disproved, what's going to satisfy that purpose?

[realthinker]

Both logic and proof are characteristic of and dependent upon the attributes of this Universe. Since, if there is a God, He is separate from and "above" this Universe (in that He made it), neither His existence nor His nonexistence can by proven by logic.

Many questions ought to be considered before engaging in a debate about the truth of Christianity. The existence of God is not necessarily one of them.

I have started a thread on this subject over on the Apologetics forum.

On the other hand I think logic and proof are a function of language which we adapt to correspond to the characteristics or attributes of the universe and our experiences. Language maybe a given but the meanings are human constructs and it seem very fluid. It evolves. Depending what they might mean by "Christ" the existence of God should be one of the first considerations.
As wisdom there may not need be a God for it to be true.
The possibilities are endless.

This is simply wrong. Logic is fundamental, unequivocal, inescapable, and absolute. If your words don't make up a meaningful argument that's probably a factor of your understanding of what the words mean or simply a failure to acknowledge facts.

What is fluid are ideas that do not correspond to measurable facts, and which are accepted or used as facts. Those are not consistent through time or even from individual to individual. This is the failure in the application of logic to spiritual matters. Don't blame it on logic.

Interesting how my thoughts have changed. I would still say that God cannot be proven through logic, but I no longer think logic and proof are peculiar to or dependent on this universe. I think they are characteristics of reality.

This must be from one of my very first posts, Zzyzx. I find that now I'm in agreement with what you have written here.

I would say as well that God cannot be proven by logic. The idea of God serves a very necessary purpose in the truth that has made our societies viable. Its purpose, as an idea that allows us to commune without perfect understanding. We are mortal and have limited capacity to understand. Without god to put certain questions to rest we'd never be able to live together, much less build what we have. Every generation would have to re-establish the facts. Every time we encountered a new society we'd have to re-establish our basis of belief, because there would almost necessarily be inconsistency, which would lead to conflict.

I do not believe that there is a deity, but I do believe that god is a necessary phenomenon in our human world. I'd be careful about doing away with god and religion. It might get to be a rough world.

[McCulloch]

I do not believe that there is a deity, but I do believe that god is a necessary phenomenon in our human world. I'd be careful about doing away with god and religion. It might get to be a rough world.

I'm not quite sure that I get what you are trying to say. God is a necessary deception? A deception that you, one of the philosophical elite, is immune to.

[realthinker]

I do not believe that there is a deity, but I do believe that god is a necessary phenomenon in our human world. I'd be careful about doing away with god and religion. It might get to be a rough world.

I'm not quite sure that I get what you are trying to say. God is a necessary deception? A deception that you, one of the philosophical elite, is immune to.

To put it more accurately, the purpose that god has served, as a social stabilizer and promoter of the exchange of ideas and all that comes with it, is necessary. Pretty much every level of social sophistication, from simple bands to tribes to cities to nations, has had some aspect of religion and shared understanding of God to serve as a social foundation. We struggle today because that consistency of thought and identity is no longer found within many nations, and it certainly isn't something found globally. God and religion are good, useful, and have been fundamental to the success of human life and social order. That doesn't mean it's true.

I'm certainly not immune to it, just as knowing the tax code doesn't make me immune to it. But because I'm aware of the tax code I am not afraid of taxes I can work within the code to find the most benefit for myself. I get to be part of its execution, not have it executed upon me. The same goes for an understanding of a god concept and its purpose in place of a belief in a deity. I still have to acknowledge its purpose and its value. I have to acknowledge that for it to have value there must be believers. But i don't have to participate in that belief and i don't have to let those with belief have any more effect on me than I chose to accept. I do not have to acknowledge the authority they invoke. I can work to try to keep religion where I think it belongs, in the family and shared politely among those willing to commune in kind, out of (but perhaps acknowledged by) politics and the workplace, and out of science.

[McCulloch]

To put it more accurately, the purpose that god has served, as a social stabilizer and promoter of the exchange of ideas and all that comes with it, is necessary. Pretty much every level of social sophistication, from simple bands to tribes to cities to nations, has had some aspect of religion and shared understanding of God to serve as a social foundation. We struggle today because that consistency of thought and identity is no longer found within many nations, and it certainly isn't something found globally. God and religion are good, useful, and have been fundamental to the success of human life and social order. That doesn't mean it's true.

So the idea of God may not be true, but it is necessary for the success of human life and social order.

I'm certainly not immune to it, just as knowing the tax code doesn't make me immune to it. But because I'm aware of the tax code I am not afraid of taxes I can work within the code to find the most benefit for myself. I get to be part of its execution, not have it executed upon me. The same goes for an understanding of a god concept and its purpose in place of a belief in a deity. I still have to acknowledge its purpose and its value. I have to acknowledge that for it to have value there must be believers. But i don't have to participate in that belief and i don't have to let those with belief have any more effect on me than I chose to accept. I do not have to acknowledge the authority they invoke. I can work to try to keep religion where I think it belongs, in the family and shared politely among those willing to commune in kind, out of (but perhaps acknowledged by) politics and the workplace, and out of science.

So if too many people came to the acceptance as you and I have that God is not true, then human life and social order will cease to be successful. Damn! We really should shut up then, for the sake of humanity!

[realthinker]

To put it more accurately, the purpose that god has served, as a social stabilizer and promoter of the exchange of ideas and all that comes with it, is necessary. Pretty much every level of social sophistication, from simple bands to tribes to cities to nations, has had some aspect of religion and shared understanding of God to serve as a social foundation. We struggle today because that consistency of thought and identity is no longer found within many nations, and it certainly isn't something found globally. God and religion are good, useful, and have been fundamental to the success of human life and social order. That doesn't mean it's true.

So the idea of God may not be true, but it is necessary for the success of human life and social order.

I'm certainly not immune to it, just as knowing the tax code doesn't make me immune to it. But because I'm aware of the tax code I am not afraid of taxes I can work within the code to find the most benefit for myself. I get to be part of its execution, not have it executed upon me. The same goes for an understanding of a god concept and its purpose in place of a belief in a deity. I still have to acknowledge its purpose and its value. I have to acknowledge that for it to have value there must be believers. But i don't have to participate in that belief and i don't have to let those with belief have any more effect on me than I chose to accept. I do not have to acknowledge the authority they invoke. I can work to try to keep religion where I think it belongs, in the family and shared politely among those willing to commune in kind, out of (but perhaps acknowledged by) politics and the workplace, and out of science.

So if too many people came to the acceptance as you and I have that God is not true, then human life and social order will cease to be successful. Damn! We really should shut up then, for the sake of humanity!

It wouldn't likely crash in a puff of logic, but I think one of the persistent factors in progress would be removed. Something else would have to take its place. There's always room for an alternative, but it'd have to possess many of the same characteristics. And I believe talking about it isn't going to hurt much because those characteristics make god unprovable. The definition is arbitrary and indefinite. It's defined by its purpose and its value, not a delineation of attributes. That's why it's lasted so long and served so well.

[fisherofmen]

Back to the OQ:

Prove God exists.

Prove he doesn't

[McCulloch]

Prove God exists.

Prove he doesn't

It is generally not acceptable to believe that entities exist without evidence. There is no evidence that the god described in the Bible exists. There is no need to disprove him any more than there is a need to disprove Ganesh, Baal, Osiris, Odin, Kali, Krishna, Ashera, Ahura Mazda, Brahma, Atman, Ymir, Dyaus, Indra, Varuna, Siva, Astarte or Cthulhu.

[fisherofmen]

It is generally not acceptable to believe that entities exist without evidence. There is no evidence that the god described in the Bible exists.

None what so ever? Are you sure? I've always been a little humored by the Atheist point of view. If you have never been a follower of Jesus then what could you possibly have witnessed as an act of God?

Do you recall the old cliche' I'll believe it when I see it. It's really- I'll see it when I believe it. It ain't called a leap of faith for nothing.

In my life, there has been far too much to write off as an odd twist of fate or coincidence. You've heard the old saying "what goes around comes around"? You believe it right? Who do you think is running that show?

[bernee51]

It is generally not acceptable to believe that entities exist without evidence. There is no evidence that the god described in the Bible exists.

None what so ever? Are you sure?

Yes

I've always been a little humored by the Atheist point of view.

Not believing in god is humourous?

If you have never been a follower of Jesus then what could you possibly have witnessed as an act of God?

So in order to beleive you have to first believe. And you think atheism is humourous!

Do you recall the old cliche' I'll believe it when I see it. It's really- I'll see it when I believe it. It ain't called a leap of faith for nothing.

No evidence - ergo 'leaps of faith' are required. IOW wishful thinking.

In my life, there has been far too much to write off as an odd twist of fate or coincidence.

And all the things that have happened that are not 'coincidence'?

You've heard the old saying "what goes around comes around"? You believe it right? Who do you think is running that show?

The 'show' runs itself.