$50 challenge: prove to me that a god or gods exist!

Your post makes me question natural selection, therefore god exists.

I think millionare75 summed it up best.

This is an interesting subject, raising important questions concerning bias in theory confirmation; but it’s too complicated a subject to really explore here. That said, I have given considerable thought to this, even did a bit of research, and have come to some conclusions that may or may not be worth sharing.

I will not make the mistake of claiming that the existence of God can be proven. In the sense of the word proof that prevails in the scholarly world and that I am using here, it can’t be proven. Proof in this sense must be indisputable, so that every rational man is compelled to agree. Proof in religious matters, were it possible, would therefore have to be based solely on merely temporal evidence. A person limiting himself to such evidence would be powerless to discriminate facts that have a bearing on the question of God’s existence from those that don’t. He would be like the person who, without a proper map, loses his way in the presence of many landmarks simply because he cannot recognize them as landmarks.

That principles of faith can’t be proven does not mean that they can’t be solidly based on evidence. In science, too, proof is impossible, and for reasons similar to those that make it impossible in religion; but scientific theories can be well-confirmed by evidence. Such theories and “maps” of faith lead one to expect certain things to happen, and the more they do happen, the more one can justifiably put confidence in those theories and “maps.” The main point is simply that just because the nonbeliever can’t find evidence for God’s existence, it does not follow that others, with more suitable “maps,” can’t find it either.

Faith, like science, is based on evidence. It is no more subjective and ignorant of evidence than secular knowledge is objective and unbiased about evidence. Having abandoned the idea that knowledge is like an objective picture, that it is in all respects to be contrasted with faith, we can see that faith and knowledge are similar in important ways. Instead of looking away from the facts of the real world, faith is one way, among many others, of looking at the world.

Faith need be no less intellectual and well-founded than a scientist’s belief about the temporal world, provided the faithful person is pure in heart, is honest and unrationalizing about the evidence he receives, and throws his energies into living his life accordingly. When he does this, he constantly encounters and recognizes spiritual landmarks—“hidden treasures of knowledge”—that allow him with complete intellectual integrity to bear witness of the accuracy of the faith that he has personally verified. As the scripture says, “faith cometh not by signs”—again, you can’t build faith on merely temporal evidence, “but signs follow those that believe.” As I understand it, faithfulness in heeding spiritual landmarks can ultimately lead one to his spiritual destination in which he may be privileged to behold spiritual things directly.

Each man tends to find in his experience evidence for what he has always believed. A person tends to see just the kinds of things he already represents on his “map”—the kinds of things he has seen before. He thereby becomes more and more convinced that his “map” is a good one; for, relying on it as he must, he interprets the world in its terms and in so doing, systematically filters out evidence for opposing points of view.

It is for this reason that what you believe theologically can never be disproven by a nonbeliever. To gather the facts that he would use against you, he must examine reality in terms of his own “map”; he has no choice. But in doing this, he filters out in advance any evidence that might support you and discredit him. The spiritual significance of temporal things escapes him. Therefore, his gathering of evidence is hopelessly prejudiced where spiritual things are concerned. In slightly technical language, we would say that in order to gather the evidence, he must assume as true the very “map” he wants to prove true and thereby assume as false the “map” he wants to prove false; this means that his argument is circular, that it “begs the question,” that, in short, it is logically worthless. The nonbeliever can’t put faith to the test and so is not in a position to discredit it. For the very same reason that merely temporal evidence can’t serve to prove the existence of spiritual things, it can’t be used to disprove it either. I would go so far as to say that accepting the world’s way of looking at reality is the problem of all so-called intellectuals who profess to find serious intellectual difficulties with faith.

Finally, although the knowledge versus faith problem has dissolved, a new problem has arisen in its place. We have seen that if a man wants to acquire the faith “map” of reality he must (1) undergo appropriate training and (2) purify the desires that have led him in the past to overlook faith. Only by these means can he gradually come to see reality more and more in the way God sees it. Thus, the new problem that has arisen is that of changing and developing ourselves so that we can comprehend the things of God. Strangely, the solution to so-called intellectual difficulties with God is not intellectual at all, but spiritual. I would say that there are no intractable intellectual problems with faith; there are only “intellectuals” with problems with faith.

As a solution to the new problem, I see two courses of action: (1) an earnest striving for a “mighty change of heart” according to the instructions to be found in the scriptures; and (2) intense study of these inspired texts. Why these writings rather than others? Because they contain the core of God’s “map” of reality insofar as it can be adapted to our understanding. You should read, make notes on, and reread the scriptures, pleading with God that your heart will be softened and that these writings will, line upon line, grow comprehensible to you.

If you do this, you will find that instead of running into dead ends of irreconcilability between knowledge and faith, your thinking will uncover more and more rich and thrilling connections between spiritual truths and knowledge about our temporal world. Because your heart has become purified, you’ll be able to use your mind to your heart’s content. You’ll realize that there is nothing to fear from the use of one’s mind, but only from the use of a mind that is subservient to impure desires. For it is like any other faculty you have—benighted and even destructive unless sanctified by the power of God; but if so sanctified, glorious.

^^ nice details, sounds very Van Til to me. One thing I'd correct, Faith is not like science by being based on evidence. Actually it's almost the exact opposite, Faith is a revelation from God (something He reveals to us) that becomes the evidence for things there exists no evidence for. But Faith is not the crux of the existence of God, rather Faith is the crux of salvation. Biblically speaking (according to the Bible) their exists scientific evidence that the one God exsits, but Faith is needed for salvation for we need to have faith that God is just yet will forgive us of our sins, this faith comes from God Himself.

Originally Posted by mjHession

Click to expand...

This sounds like a modern (evangelical) church statement, and isn't true. The Bible clearly states that the evidence for the existence of God is sufficient for the condemnation of man (see Paul, in Romans I think; will find vs. if anyone is interested). This is often referred to as General revelation, while the faith you are referring to is Special Revelation. Also you will find in the Psalms, a psalmist probably david but i'd have to look it up, the heavens (literally skies above) declare the glory of God, if His glory is declared it follows then that He exists. Faith is where we find salvation, but not the existence of God. James says that even demons recognize His existence, clearly though they do not have the faith you are referring too.
this is circular logic because in order for this to be true, you first have to establish that the bible is the truth (which you have have yet to do).

Originally Posted by mjHession

Click to expand...

Anyhow this thread is not about the above statement yet i felt the need for correction. Being a full time student (Bible student at Philadelphia Biblical University) I lack the time to make a sufficient argument (proof) right now. I will try to schedule some time for this between now and Nov. 1, if not i would love to revisit the topic at a later date, I am also a Mathematics student -- logic is my forte.

For anyone that is interested I will provide some good starting sources;

Josh Mcdowell's Evidence that demands a verdict
Lee Strobel's The case for christ
Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards The Privileged Planet
Unlocking the Mysteries of Life
i'm not going to read any websites, but i will read someone's synopsis!

looking forward your posts, especially since you are a mathematics student! that prompts me to ask you though: if it's that difficult to quickly come up with an argument, how can you so strongly believe in your god(s)?

Originally Posted by MrG

Click to expand...

Pascal's Wager isn't proof that there's a god; it's a justification for believing that there is one even without proof.
you can't justify something without proof. that's a self-contradictory statement.

Originally Posted by MrG

Click to expand...

Anyhow, I've found proof. Please PM for payment information:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.
just because you don't understand how a banana is designed the way it is doesn't mean it's designed by god. this is the modern day equivalent of calling the unexplained as sorcery.

Originally Posted by Unbreakable

Click to expand...

I know, but it kinda states that there is no proving either there is or isnt. So the whole idea is moot really

if you can't prove something (in this case, "god"), there is no reason to believe in it (again, in this case, "god"). i can might as well declare that there is an invisible cat sitting on the sofa, but since you can't prove it, it must be true (obviously a foolish thing to say).

It can't be proven you moron

Originally Posted by Augusto86

Click to expand...

Pascal's Wager is fail once you consider that there are 1000s of gods available and picking the right one has poor odds.

Plus some of them won't punish you for being a good atheist but will punish you for being an infidel.
the possibility of 1,000s of other available gods makes pascal's wager fail ONLY as an argument for christianity, islam, etc.

pascal's wager fails as an argument for the existence of god on many other grounds. wikipedia already does a pretty good job covering many of those bases. my personal favorite is that pascal's wager is a false dichotomy in that it assumes that the 2 choices it presents are the ONLY choices you have (which is false because there is the other choice that living a life without believing in god is BETTER than the restrictions on freedom imposed on you by religion).

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

Click to expand...

this is circular logic because in order for this to be true, you first have to establish that the bible is the truth (which you have have yet to do).


i'm not going to read any websites, but i will read someone's synopsis!

looking forward your posts, especially since you are a mathematics student! that prompts me to ask you though: if it's that difficult to quickly come up with an argument, how can you so strongly believe in your god(s)?

I will try to find synopsis of books.

My worldview is created from mainly one axiom (contains two statements but they go hand in hand), i'm sure there are more and I could come up with a few, but the first is the most obvious/important.

Axiom 1. There is only 1 true God, and He has revealed Himself through the Bible in its original text.

Therefore I understand your point regarding the circular argument, you are quite true, I was just assuming the the responder regarding Faith being like science had this same axiom, and therefore my correction would hold true.

Despite this being an axiom I should be able to find some proof for it using some axioms, since the Biblical text tells me I can (as cited in Romans above). For this reason I will find it difficult to quickly come up with an argument, but will do my best.

If you could compile a list of axioms to work on I would appreciate that. Such as there is universal truth, or there exist some moral laws of which the set contains elements x, y, ... or any others you might wish to start with.

I would like to consider this more of a discussion then a debate, it would not be my intent to convince you i am right and you are wrong, rather give us both the opportunity to learn from each other.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Big Punisher

Click to expand...

It can't be proven you moron
that is obviously my argument, and equally obvious, the theists will disagree, which you seem to have conveniently overlooked. additionally, this thread isn't about you agreeing with me, you dense moron.

styleforum is really lagging for me right now, so i'm going to come back later tonight, and if it's still laggy, i'll resume tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

Click to expand...

you can't justify something without proof. that's a self-contradictory statement.


just because you don't understand how a banana is designed the way it is doesn't mean it's designed by god. this is the modern day equivalent of calling the unexplained as sorcery.

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

Click to expand...

if you can't prove something (in this case, "god"), there is no reason to believe in it (again, in this case, "god"). i can might as well declare that there is an invisible cat sitting on the sofa, but since you can't prove it, it must be true (obviously a foolish thing to say).

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

Click to expand...

the possibility of 1,000s of other available gods makes pascal's wager fail ONLY as an argument for christianity, islam, etc.

pascal's wager fails as an argument for the existence of god on many other grounds. wikipedia already does a pretty good job covering many of those bases. my personal favorite is that pascal's wager is a false dichotomy in that it assumes that the 2 choices it presents are the ONLY choices you have (which is false because there is the other choice that living a life without believing in god is BETTER than the restrictions on freedom imposed on you by religion).

I just want to add that I agree with you on all of the above statements, your logic here appears solid. Again I lack time for sufficient discussion hopefully I will soon.

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

Click to expand...

that is obviously my argument, and equally obvious, the theists will disagree, which you seem to have conveniently overlooked. additionally, this thread isn't about you agreeing with me, you dense moron.

Not solid here, You should know that obvious statements still must be stated, I can think of many proofs containing statments such as Q is true, Obviously P is true. It may seem obvious to the author of the proof (or thread) but needs to be stated else the morons don't get it.

Originally Posted by Ctrl+W

Click to expand...

styleforum is really lagging for me right now, so i'm going to come back later tonight, and if it's still laggy, i'll resume tomorrow.
+1

Originally Posted by musicguy

Click to expand...

Something that is beyong the mind cannot be comprehended by the mind. That is why science hasn't been able to comprehend divinity. Science is great at describing the way the physical universe acts, but that's where it's limitations lie. Spirituality, on the other hand, is that which is beyond the mind, that which cannot be comprehended, only intuited.
if you can't prove something, whether it be scientifically, mathematically, or logically, then there is no logical reason to believe in that thing. you say that spirituality is intuited; so what LEADS to this intuition?

Originally Posted by musicguy

Click to expand...

Science talks about the big bang and how it was all energy in the beginning. That energy is divinity, that which permeates the entire cosmos. The source and sustenance of everything is the divine. Only the divine can create.
what is your proof that energy in the beginning is divinity? what is your proof that only the divine can create?

Originally Posted by teddieriley

Click to expand...

Just wait until you die, and all your questions will be answered.

Who knows, depending on how you live your life, you might find out if the devil exists as well.
if you're employing pascal's wager, see my previous posts.

Originally Posted by sho'nuff

Click to expand...

+1

i say to all here, God exists. fully so. I won't get into it here as it is not worth it. internet is the wrong place to discuss religion and/or spirituality.

and even if i can prove it i dont care for your 50 bux. i would want you to just believe in there is a God that would be all the more worth it. nuff said by me
i know you're just making an assertion and don't plan on formulating any argument, but i want to ask why is the internet the wrong place to debate religion and/or spirituality?