is it EVEN possible to "prove" that God exists?

The Bible does not assume that God is. The Bible DECLARES God!

 

It is not possible to prove (here I guess you from an objective, rationalist perspective rooted in foundations list claims of epistemological certainty) that God exists.

It is a faith statement and belief.

Just like all other aspects of metaphysical speculation.

 

It is a logical observation that God exists. Even Darwin started with God and went on from there. God's descriptive being comes from scripture. As we go back mentally in time we come to nothing, but what created nothing? Where did the big bang come from?

Cheers,

Jim

 

According to Romans 1, God has revealed Himself to all men through creation, even His very divinity, so that no one has an excuse. In other words, God doesn't believe in atheists.


Can I prove God exists? No.

 

It will depend on what you establish and accept as criteria for proof.

To the committed agnostic or atheist who considers the universe in a PURE natural domain, most likely never, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

 

FWIW, advances toward Higgs particle.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-higgs-boson-20111214,0,7076752.story

 

Not "prove" in any rational sense of the word.

Provide accumulative arguments for, show demonstrations of, add in testimonials, and documentation of effects, and one can arrive at a very conclusive statement concerning the fact that God IS, but proof? Not that I have seen, nor do I think that a transcendent "wholly other" God will ever allow us to "prove" that He exists. He tells us plainly that we believe by faith, and that based on His revelation, His prophets, and His Son.

 

Remember that God spoke directly to Moses, and displayed His power to him through the burning bush, the road turning to a serpent, the parting of the Red Sea, the giving of the Ten Commandments, etc.

Moses had hard evidence in addition to his faith.

I had a fella tell me one time, "I know there's a God. I just talked with him this morning."

Seriously, there is an element of faith, which God says is pleasing to him.

 

The belief in God is, by definition, presuppositional. However, it is also logical.

If there were no First Cause, the fact that the universe exists violates the rules of physics that govern it.

Spacetime and energymatter cannot be eternal because they involve "progression," hence, the Kalaam argument.

Entropy also demands a point of origin; otherwise, how far back could energy and matter go into an indefinite measure?

The First Cause must be intelligent because the universe is full of information. Information can only come from information.

The First Cause must be self-aware because of the above, and humanity is self-aware.

The First Cause must be greater than anything caused, including the sum of all parts.

The First Cause must be infinite in essence; if He were finite in any respect, He would be defined by information attributed from the outside, violating the Kalaam argument.

The Scriptures comprise the most attested work of antiquity; therefore, according to legal argument (not necessarily scientific), they should be considered as authoritative (if not more so) than any other historical documentation.

These Scriptures claim to be from God. According to the rules of evidence, they must be accurate. They must also be inerrant and infallible.

Accordingly, the Scriptures proclaim Jesus Christ as the Son of God Who died, was buried, and rose from the dead. Therefore, this must be true according to the rules of evidence.

 

None of us can prove that God exists, but by Him revealing Himself to us, we know that He does. The "naysayers" want something tangible to know that God does exist, so they have taken faith out of the picture. It takes God Himself, to reveal Himself to someone, to cause them to believe that there is one true and living God.

 

God is proven. That men remain unconvinced is due to the condition of their hearts, not a lack of evidence, material or otherwise.

 

Is that not as a result of the faith issue and a personal God who reveals Himself to the individual issue that I have brought up?

 

Not really. Men are able to perceive God after a carnal fashion. All men can know Him as Creator, Lawgiver and Judge. To know His Son as Brother is something altogether different.

We were speaking of whether or not God could be proven scientifically. My contention then, as is now, is that if we free "science" from the bonds of the arbitrary presumption of Naturalism, which says that if something is not material then it can't be known, then not only can He be proven, but is proven and men are accountable.

The reality is that God is proven, not that men love Him.

 

I believe that all of creation declares God's existence, but no one can believe He exists without the Holy Spirit's urging and giving us faith to believe. God said that He is "I AM." Jesus said the same thing about Himself when He was being questioned before being crucified.

To tell the truth, I think that many who claim God doesn't exist are simply trying to convince themselves that they are right.

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

It is My Opinion.....

....that it is just as hard/difficult to prove He does not exist.

Both take a lot of mental gymnastics, and for me, it makes so much heart and mind sense to believe my God not only exists, but lives in my heart. Once I was saved (46 years ago on Christmas Eve), I never had a doubt. Oh sure, the devil likes to throw in a wrench, but, as to HIs existence, all I have to do is look around, and I am more than subtly reminded that He is the creator and author of everything I see and know. :love2:

Finally - God is something like electricity. You can't see elctricity, but you can see and feel its presence and mere existance. Want to feel it, stick your finger in a light socket, and when you pick yourself up from the ground, you will no longer doubt the presence and power of electricity :laugh::thumbsup::laugh: "Hellow!"

 

Could you please share your idea(s) on HOW science might free itself from the arbitrary bonds of presumed naturalism. By naturalism, are you meaning the underlying philosophical nuance and position of "naturalism", or are you meaning that science should extend its hypotheses beyond that which is observable, repeatable and quantifiable?