Can You Prove that God exists?

1 Cor 15:19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Thomas Aquinas was wrong. They may challenge your love if you think it nothing to lose it.

Rom 8:7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Are we not in the same position saturneptune? Either God or matter has always existed. Anything else is illogical. Empty space is part of the creation.

Has he made in Stateside? There's zealous. Passionate in his hatred of God. He speaks more about God than I do.

john.

 

DQuixote said

Thanks! I lurk daily but reserve most of my comments for the NASCAR thread!

 

Through faith, one can.

If it is proven, there is no faith.

 

I have not read all the posts but it does not matter.


God does exist as you can see His hand in creation, everywhere.

If a person wants to gain even greater knowledge of Him and develop a relationship with the promise of salvation, then they should start on page one of the Holy Bible, Genesis.


The difficulty is not in proving that God exists, for goodness sakes He has walked with man, not to mention the above; the difficulty is in convincing men or bringing men to accept what they truly fear, and that is that there is indeed someone GREATER than they.


Do we dare think we could have convinced those who rejected Christ, whilst He was among them? No! It is not in convincing people God exists but in changing their hearts in accepting it.


take care :jesus:

 

Clearly you have misunderstood me. First of all, I do not find faith disheartening in any sense. I find some Christians incessant need to physically provide evidence, i.e., factual, finite proof, of an infinite God disheartening. It logically, (see my last post in response to Andy T.), cannot be accomplished. we both believe the Bible to be the word of God, but there are many people who do not use the bible as anything other than a semi-historical story book. You can provide "proof" of your faith, i.e., why you personally believe in God and His existence, not proof that your God categorically exists. The two are completely different in nature. I absolutely believe that we should share our faith and why we believe as we do every chance we can get.

Secondly, and I ask again, just how do you define faith? Faith does not have to be rational, and in many instances it is not, i.e., Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Issaac. Does this diminish the influence faith has over the Christian life? No.

 

Abrahams willingness to sacrifice Issaac was perfectly rational, when you have the information that Abraham had.

Hebrews 11:17-19
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Abraham understood who God was and that God would keep His promise, even if it meant raising Isaac from the dead. Abraham did not pick up a knife and say 'well gee, I don't know if there really is a God, but I think I'm going to sacrifice my son and just hope everything will work out.'

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. You don't see it, but you have the evidence. Abraham did not see how God was going to keep the promise, but he had the evidence that God was able and that was enough.

 

Without faith, it is impossible to please God. However, we do not have to check our brains at door to have faith. While I do not always understand God's ways, He always make sense to me. Does that make sense? :laugh:

 

Hello Gold Dragon.

I think I'm in the other corner. If there is faith then it's been proven.

Can one be certain of anything unproved?

One might say through faith one can believe anything but faith without proof must surely rank as wishful thinking? Can a certain hope be nothing more than very very good wishful thinking?

The Israelites had visible proof of God for forty years yet it was of no use to them because they did not combine it with faith.
I believe the USA exists never having been there. I have enough evidence to make you lot certain.
If you say I could travel to the US and see it for myself I can say any man can ask Jesus to reveal Himself to them and then they can see the Kingdom of God if He does. Why does Jesus reveal Himself to us if faith depended on Him not revealing Himself to us?

Why do I believe in a Being I can't see and touch? From a book that made little sense and was nonsense where it did or a few spiritual experiences I have had. Why is it so real and so intertwined in every part of my life? It must be because I have sufficient evidence of the truth to convince me as I am convinced the USA exists.

Anyway, God says we are without excuse for not believing.

RO 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

If we are without excuse God must think it proved that He exists.

FP.

No, Abraham trusted God and even if he slit Isaac's throat, and he nearly did, Abraham knew he would get him back from the dead because he had a rational response to a promise of God, who he met face to face. ...because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. Gen 21:12.
Gen 22:4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

Abraham never wavered in his certain belief that God told him the truth and that is of the higest rational. Faith is rational.

Whatcha think?

john.

 

FP.

We can know Him.

HEB 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity...17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way...

Gal 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

He is an infinite God that one can bump into in the street. JN 10:14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--

john.

 

I didn't get to see it but I'm very curious to see it, being a big fan of WoTM.

I don't believe that anyone can really "prove" the existence of God, only because "proof" is subjective.

I do believe, however, that we can give solid evidence for the existence of God and that we can give the Gospel and let God do the convicting.

 

For goodness sake, did some of you even read what I wrote? I never said we cannot know God. I said from the start, (my second post in this thread), that faith was belief in the evidence of things unseen. Yes, it was a worded as a question, but I would think it was obvious it was a rhetorical question. If faith is evidence in things unseen, which it is, and we know God exists by our faith alone, which we do, then we cannot logically prove God exists in that we do not have verifiable proof of His existence.

Of course Christians know God exists, but that does not mean we can prove His existence to those who choose to disregard the Bible among other things. Our truth is that which exists for God, thereby making faith the only possible criterion in obtaining that truth. You cannot expect a non-Christian to posit a worldview based on the same premise of truth do you? I would hope not, because that is naive to say the least.

 

I find all the posts that say that we cannot use reason to prove God to be a bit amusing. You see, they are all giving reasonable statements, and all of them are reasonable statements concerning whether God exists.

I've never met anyone who became a Christian because they thought it was unreasonable, illogical, and absurd. No one I've ever met has ever known anyone who became a Christian because they thought it was an illogical act. Somehow, in some sense, everyone thought they were making a logical conclusion, to put their trust in Jesus.

To say the sentence "You can't prove that God exists." is a logical statement about the existence of God. All the lines of reason that are given here where people try to show that we can't prove the existence of God, are all logical statements giving a conclusion.

So it is possible to make logical statements about the existence of God, ones that draw a conclusion.

Now, there is a difference between drawing a logical statement and getting someone to believe something. The statement "I exist" is perfectly logical and reasonable (to deny it is self-refuting). But that doesn't mean that anyone in the world truly believes it.

For those who have given very good proofs for the existence of God, see the writings of William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Frank Turek, and Thomas Aquinas, just for starters.

 

Exactly, Abraham trusted God to the fullest exent. He believed, i.e., had faith that God would fufill His promise. That in and of itself is NOT rational. Understandable to the Christian, but nonetheless irrational behavior because it runs counter to human understanding and experience.

One of my favorite quotes, "By faith I make renunciation of nothing; on the contrary, by faith I acquire everything, precisely in the sense in which it is said that he who has faith like a grain of mustard can remove mountains... By faith Abraham did not renounce his claim upon Isaac, but by faith he got Isaac."

 

With no evidence?

 

And what exactly is your take on Romans 14. We live by faith not reason as Christians. Even so what is reasonable to us as Christains is not reasonable to non-Christians. We have proof and evidence of our faith but none of it is verifiable to the outside world, nor can it be as we accept on the basis of faith. No one is arguing against the existence of God, only the ability of finite man to prove the existence of God. The two are very different.

As for Aquinas he seeks to prove the existence of God in the metaphysical, and his proof is just as circular as Descartes in 1641.

Aquinas
" Therefore everything whose existence is something other than its nature must derive its existence from another. and since everything existing through another is traced back to something existing of itself as its first cause, there must be some thing which is the cause or reason for the existence of all things and which is itself existence pure and simple. Otherwise there would be an infinite regress in causes...."

"If there were an infinite regress in efficient causes, however, there would be no first cause and thus no intermediate causes or ultimate effect, which is obviuosly false. It is necessary then to postulate some first efficient cause, which all call God."

"There is some intelligent individual, consequently, who directs all natural things to their end. This we call God"

I could list even more, but there is no point. Aquinas' arguments lead to the proof in a creator, even an infinite being, but I have yet to see absolute proof in the existence of his God, and I've read him and others extensively. Someone could create their own god and still be able to use Aquinas to prove the existence of that god, if such god was also a creator being.

 

Evident to him, yes. Evident to a Christian, for the most part yes. Evident to the outside world, no.

 

The bible never sets out to prove the existence of God. The bible assumes the existence of God. Because God is sovereign, He must reveal Himself to man, rather than having man coming to Him through human reasoning.

If anything, all the arguments for the existence of God are only human confirmation and not really evidence of the existence of God. God would still be God even if we could formulate arguments to prove Him.

Let's start where the Scriptures start, with the existence of a sovereign God. "But God's truth stands firm like a foundation stone with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and "Those who claim they belong to the Lord must turn away from all wickedness" (2 Tim 2:19, NLT).

 

With no proof.

He had plenty of evidence from a God in whom he had faith.

But, as far as proof goes, this event still does not stand, as it can be picked apart by those who don't want to believe it.

There is a big difference between "evidence" and "proof".

I can prove to you that my Toyota Supra is black, unless you want to get into the sort of philosophical argument of "what is black?" Or, "Is black really black?"

However, I cannot prove to you that one day I placed 5th at Talladega. I did. I can show you evidence. But, I cannot prove it. I can show you enough evidence that you would believe that it's true, unless you are an ultra-skeptic.

 

There are two words being used in this thread that can be a bit confusing.

PROOF (prove) is a mathmatical term concerning a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it.

A + B + C = God's existence ​

EVIDENCE is a legal term, something that furnishes proof : Evidence typically includes testimony of witnesses.
Evidence is required to decide in favor of one side or the other based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy.

"preponderance of the evidence"
"beyond all reasonable doubt"​

Rob

 

That's actually Blaise Pascal, not Aquinas.

It's commonly referred to as Pascal's Wager.

I wouldn't use is as an apologetic, only because the atheist doesn't believe that he has anything to gain/lose in the first place.