Proofs of god's existence

[Augustin56]

Let say the BB theory is true.
Well, then......the real science would not be to prove that stuff "banged"..... or even what caused the stuff to "bang"...... the real science would be to explain where the stuff originally came from that "banged".

After all, can matter just create itself from blank nothingness ?

That's a No.

Science can do a lot of talking but they can't Create a Red Rose from nothing.
Why?
Because.....God already did it for them.

I fear you are caught in a scientistic error. Science, remember, is structured to gather data, make a hypothesis about that data, test that data, and if it holds true, then we conclude that we have found a scientific truth. Right?

But what does science say about things for which it cannot collect actual data through observation, etc.? Nothing. Absolutely nothing! Science is silent. In fact, about 99% of the universe is unaddressable by science, because it is out of our reach. And there are many thruths that science will never be able to address. For example, science can tell us the chemical makeup of the paint used to paint the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. But science will never be able to tell us why that painting is beautiful! Similary, science can tell us the chemical makeup of the ink and paper in a book. But science will never be able to tell us the deeper meaning of a book of poetry. So, I would propose that holding science as the be-all and end-all of the measure of truth is a mistake. It's useful, in some situations, yes! But not in all and not everywhere.

But that doesn't mean we don't have evidence of God, or that we cannot reason to God based on what evidence we do have, such as the Big Bang theory. For example, the question whether the universe was created randomly or by design was calculated by a scientest named Roger Primrose. He calculated that the chances of the universe being created by entropy (randomness) was 1 in 10 to the 1230th power. That's 1 followed by 1230 zeroes!

Our legal system currently accepts DNA evidence as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in court. However, DNA has a 1 in 43 billion chance of being in error. That's 43, followed by 9 zeroes. The odds of the universe being created by entropy are many, many times smaller than DNA evidence being in error. And, yet, we accept DNA evidence as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

[Wrangler]

I would propose that holding science as the be-all and end-all of the measure of truth is a mistake

Indeed, Capital-S, Science, is an IDOL.

 

[Behold]

But what does science say about things for which it cannot collect actual data through observation, etc.? Nothing. Absolutely nothing!

"Science" creates "fossil records" that are not accurate, and they pretend that they are "connected".
Even Carbon Dating is not accurate, and this is used by "science" as Proof.

Science teaches that everything is "evolving", but that is also not correct.
Entropy is actually the evolving LIFE of everything.
How do you know?
Because everything is dying, or running down, or running out, or coming to an end, or burning out.
Look at your car..
Is it evolving or is it turning into RUST.
Look at the SUN... Is it evolving or is it burning out..
Is your body evolving, or is it aging and dying as it heads back to DUST. ?

So, the evidence that the "Big Bang" is "where it all started, is a scientific effort to begin creation with a big bang, yet avoided the real question which is.... "where did the stuff come from that banged".?

There is a reason that Evolutionary Theology is the bread and butter of the Atheist, or that that BB theory is their true religion.
Science has designed it to be so for them, as its gives God deniers a place to run.

 

[Augustin56]

I think the scientific community has fudged things like evolution in order to deny God's existence. While there may be some sort of evolution between species, there has never been one piece of evidence that shows that all life began from the first primitive life form, evolving into all the species we have today. All the science books are based on broad assumptions, not scientific evidence, when it comes to evolution.

 

[Behold]

I think the scientific community has fudged things like evolution in order to deny God's existence. While there may be some sort of evolution between species, there has never been one piece of evidence that shows that all life began from the first primitive life form, evolving into all the species we have today. All the science books are based on broad assumptions, not scientific evidence, when it comes to evolution.

"fudged", is a very nice way to classify it., Augustine56

I personally dont have an issue with Darwin, unless his science is used to indoctrinate Kids about "came from apes", while God can't be taught in School as "Creator".

If they would just allow BOTH........to be taught as "theory".......
But you can only have the "ape" theory and the Big BANG Theory that is taught as TRUTH in school to kids.

So, that is the Devil's handiwork, as he does not care if you teach that Mars and Saturn are made out of CHEEZE, as long as you Keep GOD OUT.

 

[Augustin56]

"fudged", is a very nice way to classify it., Augustine56

I personally dont have an issue with Darwin, unless his science is used to indoctrinate Kids about "came from apes", while God can't be taught in School as "Creator".

If they would just allow BOTH........to be taught as "theory".......
But you can only have the "ape" theory and the Big BANG Theory that is taught as TRUTH in school to kids.

So, that is the Devil's handiwork, as he does not care if you teach that Mars and Saturn are made out of CHEEZE, as long as you Keep GOD OUT.

That's a good point. The devil has a saying, "Anything but God."

 

[Behold]

That's a good point. The devil has a saying, "Anything but God."

He is always denying God's word as well.

Satan is the first "bible corrector".
He did it in Genesis.....

He said to Eve..."hath God said" ?
See that?
That is disputing God's word....

Often today you find Him doing it like this....

"well, thats not a good translation......let me show you what the Original Greek says".

See that? That is a man, pride filled to the bone, presenting himself as the authority over the bible by using what He probably can't even read.
He read some Greek Lexicon Translation, and uses whatever the translator said as "here is how i correct a bible"

I see these people all the time doing this in Pulpits and on Forums.
They want to present themselves as more spiritual then everyone else, so they "correct the bible with the Greek".
Most of these people can't even read Koine Greek.

 

[Augustin56]

He is always denying God's word as well.

Satan is the first "bible corrector".
He did it in Genesis.....

He said to Eve..."hath God said" ?
See that?
That is disputing God's word....

Often today you find Him doing it like this....

"well, thats not a good translation......let me show you what the Original Greek says".

See that? That is a man, pride filled to the bone, presenting himself as the authority over the bible by using what He probably can't even read.
He read some Greek Lexicon Translation, and uses whatever the translator said as "here is how i correct a bible"

I see these people all the time doing this in Pulpits and on Forums.
They want to present themselves as more spiritual then everyone else, so they "correct the bible with the Greek".
Most of these people can't even read Koine Greek.

I don't think the Bible was ever meant to be a do-it-yourself kit. I think it was a tool of the Church founded by Christ, and assembled by that Church. A good tool, absolutely! But not a do-it-yourself kit. If it were, there would be one Protestant denomination with one set of beliefs, not thousands. There has to be some authority with whom the buck stops and we can know the proper translation of the Bible. Otherwise, we just have chaos....like we do now within Protestantism. For example, the Baptists read the Bible and say that infant baptism is invalid. The Lutherans and Episcopalians read the Bible and say it is valid. Both sides read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible, but come up with contradictory interpretations. Both sides cannot be right. To whom will they go to settle things? Nobody in Protestantism has that authority.

 

[Wrangler]

Both sides cannot be right.

I think they can. Go left. Go right.

 

[Behold]

. To whom will they go to settle things? Nobody in Protestantism has that authority.

The Bible is the Final Authority.
The Holy Spirit reveals the word of God.
Denominations are man made, Christianity is God made.

The way you discover who has it "right" is simply to find out if they believe that they can lose their Salvation.
IF they say """yes"""", as their "doctrine" or "denomination" = then you have found out that the very core of their Christianity, has not understood the Cross of Christ, the Blood Atonement, or "justification by Faith".
This will be a person or a denomination that does not understand Paul's Doctrine, or care about it.
The Buck stops right there.

 

[Augustin56]

The Bible is the Final Authority.
The Holy Spirit reveals the word of God.
Denominations are man made, Christianity is God made.

The way you discover who has it "right" is simply to find out if they believe that they can lose their Salvation.
IF they say """yes"""", as their "doctrine" or "denomination" = then you have found out that the very core of their Christianity, has not understood the Cross of Christ, the Blood Atonement, or "justification by Faith".
This will be a person or a denomination that does not understand Paul's Doctrine, or care about it.
The Buck stops right there.

Evidently that doesn't work because everyone can twist Scriptures to mean whatever they want, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.

Example: Baptists claim that infant baptism is invalid. Lutherans and Episcopalians claim it is valid. Both sides read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible, but come up with interpretations 180 degrees from one another.

The fact that there are literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting Protestant denominations, all claiming that their interpretations are the right one pretty much proves that approach doesn't work.

I would draw your attention to 2 Peter 1:20-21, which says

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

And, yet, this is what all Protestantism is based upon. Some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture.

Understand that the canon (list of books) of the New Testament wasn't even decided until the late 4th century, by the Catholic Church. How could a Bible-reading, self-interpreting church work without the New Testament in the Bible? And how would that work when the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until well after the Industrial Revolution?

St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15. Historically, the only Church around then was the Catholic Church. The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. and Protestantism, with it's non-bibical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, didn't begin until the 16th century!

 

[Behold]

St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15. Historically, the only Church around then was the Catholic Church.

That's "cult of mary" propaganda, as at that time, you had Local Churches..

Corinthians
Ephesians
Galatians
Philippians.

see those?
Those are not Catholic, they are just "the body of Christ"......as defined by being "born again" and that not of water by "by my SPIRIT, sayeth the Lord".

See, Paul was not a Catholic, Jesus is not a Catholic.. and Mary is not a Catholic.
Peter is not a Pope.

In about 5 AD, the "church father's" gave this name to your idea of "church"

"the CULT of Mary".

Later it became known as the CC
-

 

[Augustin56]

That's "cult of mary" propaganda, as at that time, you had Local Churches..

Corinthians
Ephesians
Galatians
Philippians.

see those?
Those are not Catholic, they are just "the body of Christ"......as defined by being "born again" and that not of water by "by my SPIRIT, sayeth the Lord".

See, Paul was not a Catholic, Jesus is not a Catholic.. and Mary is not a Catholic.
Peter is not a Pope.

In about 5 AD, the "church father's" gave this name to your idea of "church"

"the CULT of Mary".

Later it became known as the CC
-
View attachment 31705

Every one of those were Catholic. They weren't separate from the Catholic Church. Those were Catholic churches in specific locations.

You, like the Pharisees, are greatly misled. You miss the obvious truth before you. The Pharisees couldn't imagine that Jesus was the Messiah. You cannot imagine that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus.

And yet, we have written proof, from as early as 107 A.D., of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained and appointed as bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, writing to the Smyrnaeans about the "Catholic Church" not as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand the name.

His letter says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

 

[Behold]

Every one of those were Catholic. They weren't separate from the Catholic Church. Those were Catholic churches in specific locations.

Catholic "cult of Mary" indoctrination training is nothing new., and you are obviously very well trained.
Its been around even before the CC created the "Dark Ages".

Did you ever read the account of Joan of Arc?

She's now a Catholic "Saint".
Before she became one, the Catholic Church burned her alive.
Welcome to Catholicism...its quite a cult.

 

[Jim B]

Evidently that doesn't work because everyone can twist Scriptures to mean whatever they want, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.

Example: Baptists claim that infant baptism is invalid. Lutherans and Episcopalians claim it is valid. Both sides read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible, but come up with interpretations 180 degrees from one another.

The fact that there are literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting Protestant denominations, all claiming that their interpretations are the right one pretty much proves that approach doesn't work.

I would draw your attention to 2 Peter 1:20-21, which says

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

And, yet, this is what all Protestantism is based upon. Some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture.

Understand that the canon (list of books) of the New Testament wasn't even decided until the late 4th century, by the Catholic Church. How could a Bible-reading, self-interpreting church work without the New Testament in the Bible? And how would that work when the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until well after the Industrial Revolution?

St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15. Historically, the only Church around then was the Catholic Church. The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. and Protestantism, with it's non-bibical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, didn't begin until the 16th century!

There are some problems with your post...

You have misapplied 2 Peter 1:20-21. It says "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." NRSVue

This is clearly referring to spoken prophecy, not to the Bible in its entirety. "rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." And it most certainly is not "what all Protestantism is based upon".

Of course people read the Bible because we want to understand God's written communication to us. That is why we have Bibles!!! Why do you think that God has to communicate to people through intermediaries? Do you really think that the Creator of the Universe can't communicate directly with His created beings???

And writing that "St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15. Historically, the only Church around then was the Catholic Church" is total nonsense! There is no Catholic denomination mentioned anywhere in the Bible!!! The early church -- actually a collection of various churches -- was composed of mostly Jews (with a few Gentiles). They are described in the Bible by their locations: Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Colossae, etc. The Catholic denomination claiming to be the original church simply is not true!

1 Timothy 3:14-15 says "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." The church is the body of Christ, not your denomination!

When are you Catholics going to face facts???

 

[Berserk]

Possibility is proof?

There is no evidence for multi-verse; it is a statement of speculating a beginning beyond what evidence supports, Creation. Calling it by another name (Big Bang) changes nothing.

It is proof using the civil standard of more likely than not. You not only reject the possibility of God, you reject the evidence of his work.

To refer to the universe as "God's work" commits the fallacy of begging the question. Physicists postulate the multi-verse t;heory as a potentially testable implication of the highly respected string theory and its discovery of extra dimensions. This theory is more "reasonable" than the God hypothesis because God's existence is a matter of intuition rather than reason or logic. The theists' assumptions are untestable and arbitrary. I say this as an evangelical who accepts the God of the Bible.

Actually, it is misguided to claim that God exists. God is not one being among countless other beings in the universe. Rather, God is the ground of all Being--the answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing at all. Here God's Self-disclosure to Moses at the Burning Bush is instructive: The Hebrew identifies God not as "I am that I am" but as "I will be whatever I will be (so OT scholar Berhard Anderson, among other scholars)."

 

[Jim B]

To refer to the universe as "God's work" commits the fallacy of begging the question. Physicists postulate the multi-verse t;heory as a potentially testable implication of the highly respected string theory and its discovery of extra dimensions. This theory is more "reasonable" than the God hypothesis because God's existence is a matter of intuition rather than reason or logic. The theists' assumptions are untestable and arbitrary. I say this as an evangelical who accepts the God of the Bible.

Actually, it is misguided to claim that God exists. God is not one being among countless other beings in the universe. Rather, God is the ground of all Being--the answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing at all. Here God's Self-disclosure to Moses at the Burning Bush is instructive: The Hebrew identifies God not as "I am that I am" but as "I will be whatever I will be (so OT scholar Berhard Anderson, among other scholars)."

And you "say this as an evangelical who accepts the God of the Bible"??? Clearly you do not accept the God of the Bible, and I question how you can call yourself an "evangelical" (a spreader of good news).

Romans 1:19-20b, " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been seen and understood through the things God has made."

 

[Berserk]

The important point to know about biblical revelation is not the sense in which it is divinely inspired, but the fact that it is woefully incomplete. That's why there are so many theological academic journals to debate unresolved bibilcal issues. The Bible provides all we need to know about the way of salvation and how to live a Christian life, but leaves countless important questions unanswered. For example, progressives use the Pentateuch to justify a pro-choice position on abortion. Their claim is not explicitly refuted by vague biblical claims about the sanctity of life. I say this as an opponent of abortion. A first-century Christian prohibition of abortion can indeed be found in the NT era, but it is found in Didache 4:2: "Thou shalt not procure an abortion." Though non-canonical, Didache reflects the moral teaching of the early NT church...

 

[Jim B]

The important point to know about biblical revelation is not the sense in which it is divinely inspired, but the fact that it is woefully incomplete. That's why there are so many theological academic journals to debate unresolved bibilcal issues. The Bible provides all we need to know about the way of salvation and how to live a Christian life, but leaves countless important questions unanswered. For example, progressives use the Pentateuch to justify a pro-choice position on abortion. Their claim is not explicitly refuted by vague biblical claims about the sanctity of life. I say this as an opponent of abortion. A first-century Christian prohibition of abortion can indeed be found in the NT era, but it is found in Didache 4:2: "Thou shalt not procure an abortion." Though non-canonical, Didache reflects the moral teaching of the early NT church...

This is 2022, many centuries after the Didache was written. Modern medicine, including problems and solutions related to pregnancy, bears no resemblance to the medical care of roughly two millennia ago.

And the subject of abortion is discussed in other threads. It is not relevant to a discussion of "proof of God's existence".

 

[Wrangler]

To refer to the universe as "God's work" commits the fallacy of begging the question. Physicists postulate the multi-verse theory as a potentially testable implication of the highly respected string theory and its discovery of extra dimensions.

Like I said, no proof.

Atheists lack the humility to acknowledge there is no proof for their non-God speculations. The funny part of you referring to begging the question is that it moves the goal posts the Atheists cannot answer but violate Occam’s razor in their efforts.

Q. How did the universe begin?

SCIENCE: Big Bang theory.

ATHEIST: We can’t be led by science when it supports God. Let’s come up with an alternate outside universe postulate. Multi-verse theory.

Q.

1. What caused the universe that created this universe?
2. Can one take a look at this universe creating machine?
3. Who needs evidence when you have Atheist postulates that are potentially testable ?
4. Why is evidence not a burden for Atheists postulates?