By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

 

Well, is it objectively verifiable?

Yes 57 15.20%
 
Not Sure 20 5.33%
 
No 244 65.07%
 
What's objective mean? 16 4.27%
 
Results 38 10.13%
 
Total:375
Dulfite on 30 January 2016
JWeinCom said:
Dulfite said:

Lighting isn't the building blocks of existence itself, though, so it's not really comparable. And I've heard the eternal thing (the one where the universe expands into nothingness, then retracts and starts all over again, again and again, right?), but if that were true why did it start doing that? Why is there anything? Why is there nothing? No amount of math can prove why there is something instead of nothing. None of us can even comprehend nothing, truly.

As for where did God come from, HE didn't. HE was and is and will always be there. That is my Christian belief, based on faith. I can't explain it to you. It's a faith thing. I wrestled with the logic against it long ago, and my faith in God came out victorious and now, years/decades later, nothing else even makes sense to me. Having Christ changes you and changes your perspective, but it's not something that someone who doesn't have Christ can understand fully, so me trying to explain it would be futile. It's just something people have to experience themselves, they can't understand it with their brains alone.

When it comes to the big bang, you're asking a lot of questions.  And that's fine people should ask questions, because that's how we learn things.

Then, when you start talking about god, suddenly, evidence doesn't matter.  And it's fine if YOU want to believe that, but to come into a topic asking for proof of god to point out flaws in other models as your evidence is hypocritical.  Your claims are not special and need to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny if you want to consider them as proof.

As for the whole "you need Christ to get Christ" thing, I've heard it before, and it absolutely seems bizarre.  I was not raised to believe in christ, so I have no predisposition towards that concept.  So, to understand it, I have to believe it first.  But to believe it, I need to already have it.  And the only way to get it is through an experience that I have no control over @_@...

So, as a side question, do you believe that non-believers are punished?  If so, is it fair to punish people for not believing in something that they need experience to believe, when that experience has not been provided?

 

With science, people always seem to base it on facts and not faith. If you have faith in science, then fine, but most people I talk to say there is no faith and it is all facts and theories. That is why I apply different rules to God, because with God being based on faith, I don't have to understand everything and how the whole universe tics, but with science not having anything you can have faith in, that argues we do have to understand how the whole universe tics, and if something doesn't make sense, based on facts and theories, then that puts doubt into it. But again, if you have faith in science (meaning you believe it even if you don't understand it completely, which no human does) then that's different.

And by the way, there is a TON of evidence over thousands of years for the stuff that happened in the Bible having occured (The plagues in Egypt, pieces from wooden ship on top of a mountain scattered and buried beneath tons of ice, accounts for the life of Jesus, etc). It's not entirely based on faith with no evidence.

As for your last point, it's a heart thing. God desires people to come to HIM and to receive HIS blessing of salvation, but people refuse and reject HIM time and time again. And people, all of us, are deserving of the punishments of eternal separation from God (we kill each other, lie to each other, commit all kinds of sexual immorality, and the list goes on). But God, being merciful, offered THE way out of that in Jesus Christ. Blaming God for people going to hell when he has freely offered the way out of it is like blaming a firefighter on a lader extending his hand to someone in a burning building and that person rejecting the hand, it just doesn't make sense. 



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 30 January 2016
Dulfite said:
JWeinCom said:
Dulfite said:

Lighting isn't the building blocks of existence itself, though, so it's not really comparable. And I've heard the eternal thing (the one where the universe expands into nothingness, then retracts and starts all over again, again and again, right?), but if that were true why did it start doing that? Why is there anything? Why is there nothing? No amount of math can prove why there is something instead of nothing. None of us can even comprehend nothing, truly.

As for where did God come from, HE didn't. HE was and is and will always be there. That is my Christian belief, based on faith. I can't explain it to you. It's a faith thing. I wrestled with the logic against it long ago, and my faith in God came out victorious and now, years/decades later, nothing else even makes sense to me. Having Christ changes you and changes your perspective, but it's not something that someone who doesn't have Christ can understand fully, so me trying to explain it would be futile. It's just something people have to experience themselves, they can't understand it with their brains alone.

When it comes to the big bang, you're asking a lot of questions.  And that's fine people should ask questions, because that's how we learn things.

Then, when you start talking about god, suddenly, evidence doesn't matter.  And it's fine if YOU want to believe that, but to come into a topic asking for proof of god to point out flaws in other models as your evidence is hypocritical.  Your claims are not special and need to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny if you want to consider them as proof.

As for the whole "you need Christ to get Christ" thing, I've heard it before, and it absolutely seems bizarre.  I was not raised to believe in christ, so I have no predisposition towards that concept.  So, to understand it, I have to believe it first.  But to believe it, I need to already have it.  And the only way to get it is through an experience that I have no control over @_@...

So, as a side question, do you believe that non-believers are punished?  If so, is it fair to punish people for not believing in something that they need experience to believe, when that experience has not been provided?

 

With science, people always seem to base it on facts and not faith. If you have faith in science, then fine, but most people I talk to say there is no faith and it is all facts and theories. That is why I apply different rules to God, because with God being based on faith, I don't have to understand everything and how the whole universe tics, but with science not having anything you can have faith in, that argues we do have to understand how the whole universe tics, and if something doesn't make sense, based on facts and theories, then that puts doubt into it. But again, if you have faith in science (meaning you believe it even if you don't understand it completely, which no human does) then that's different.

And by the way, there is a TON of evidence over thousands of years for the stuff that happened in the Bible having occured (The plagues in Egypt, pieces from wooden ship on top of a mountain scattered and buried beneath tons of ice, accounts for the life of Jesus, etc). It's not entirely based on faith with no evidence.

As for your last point, it's a heart thing. God desires people to come to HIM and to receive HIS blessing of salvation, but people refuse and reject HIM time and time again. And people, all of us, are deserving of the punishments of eternal separation from God (we kill each other, lie to each other, commit all kinds of sexual immorality, and the list goes on). But God, being merciful, offered THE way out of that in Jesus Christ. Blaming God for people going to hell when he has freely offered the way out of it is like blaming a firefighter on a lader extending his hand to someone in a burning building and that person rejecting the hand, it just doesn't make sense. 

 

So... you have completely different truth criteria for the two things?  For science we need evidence, but we don't for religious claims?  That's just doublethink.

But if you have any actual objective proof, then go for it.  There have been lots of hoaxes and unproven claims, but to my knowledge, no verification for any of the bible's supernatural claims.

And, it is nothing like a firefighter.  Because with a firefighter I can see the ladder and I can see my house is on fire.  With god, there is no objective evidence.

You said that I can't use my brain to know, which is the only tool I have.  You said it had to be experienced.  So then, should I be punished for not having an experience that I cannot provide for myself and god has not provided? 



Nem on 30 January 2016
Mr.Playstation said:

Moses- Existed
Jesus- Existed
Abraham -Existed

They all talked about the same god and there was a period of 2000 years between Abraham and Jesus.

 

How can you possibly know what they talked about? How can you possibly know they weren't just mad or charlatons? Is this your proof? Is it that easy to fool you?

Please, think a little bit harder than that.

 

And now on the topic...

Religion makes no sense (in present day. In the past it was a means to control the masses). Has no proof. Has been proven wrong in all claims they make, and they keep changing their texts to adapt to this. God, as is described by religions simply does not exist. Because there is no reason for him to exist. Just cause we DON'T KNOW how the universe started (though we suspect) doesnt mean "God" is therefore the only explanation.

God = We don't know.  But humans need to complete stories. Our brains hate unresolved issues. Its so much easier to believe the first dumbest explanation and move on than leave it on-hold. Its pretty sad to me to see people capitulating to their animalistic habits like that.

Yes, existance is cruel. Deal with it. Its just what it is. There is no convenient God that will do you favors if you do as he wants. A God worth his name couldnt care more about us than we do about ants.



Torillian on 30 January 2016
Dulfite said:

As for your last point, it's a heart thing. God desires people to come to HIM and to receive HIS blessing of salvation, but people refuse and reject HIM time and time again. And people, all of us, are deserving of the punishments of eternal separation from God (we kill each other, lie to each other, commit all kinds of sexual immorality, and the list goes on). But God, being merciful, offered THE way out of that in Jesus Christ. Blaming God for people going to hell when he has freely offered the way out of it is like blaming a firefighter on a lader extending his hand to someone in a burning building and that person rejecting the hand, it just doesn't make sense. 

God makes the rules and then decides what's required for him to "forgive us" our transgressions.  

In your analogy that would be like if the Firefighter lit the person's house on fire, and then when reaching out his hand said that you'll have to love him in order for him to save you.  





...

pauluzzz1981 on 30 January 2016
RadiantDanceMachine said:

It is my position that no amount of subjective evidence would be sufficient to prove a claim. 

Since subjective evidence is mere opinion, it serves no function in matters of truth. For example, suppose I claim to have seen Bigfoot. Someone else makes the same proclamation. So on and so forth...would this be convincing to anybody? I should hope not.  The reason for this is because the subject is unable to self-confirm his or her experiences. The subject can be mistaken, can hallucinate, can have invalid sensory interpretation. 

Now contrast this with the objective - that which is not subject to interpretation. For example, suppose I had filmed the 9/11 terror attacks. No one can argue that two planes did not collide with the WTC because it's right there on video. (ignoring the possibility of doctored videos, which can be detected anyway)

Now, can anyone think of objective evidence for the existence of God? If so, please share it. I would be supremely interested in it.

yes. Through healings





Around the Network
Nighthawk117 on 30 January 2016

The question is: " Is God's existence objectively verifiable?"

Guys, the answer is rather really simple.
If you can prove that ghosts exist, then I would say unequivocally that God exists.
Evolution cannot explain the existence of ghosts, which is the human soul.
Only God could have created the human soul, and thus ghosts.

Now, good luck proving to me that ghosts exist, because I would need to see them with my own eyes.



Dulfite on 30 January 2016
Torillian said:
Dulfite said:

As for your last point, it's a heart thing. God desires people to come to HIM and to receive HIS blessing of salvation, but people refuse and reject HIM time and time again. And people, all of us, are deserving of the punishments of eternal separation from God (we kill each other, lie to each other, commit all kinds of sexual immorality, and the list goes on). But God, being merciful, offered THE way out of that in Jesus Christ. Blaming God for people going to hell when he has freely offered the way out of it is like blaming a firefighter on a lader extending his hand to someone in a burning building and that person rejecting the hand, it just doesn't make sense. 

God makes the rules and then decides what's required for him to "forgive us" our transgressions.  

In your analogy that would be like if the Firefighter lit the person's house on fire, and then when reaching out his hand said that you'll have to love him in order for him to save you.  

 

No, because mankind was not originally in sin when God create us. We put ourselves into sin and therefore the burning house. It's not like we, as a species, were created in the burning house.



Norris2k on 30 January 2016
JWeinCom said:
Oh absolutely. 100% proof? Probably not. But there could be enough proof that it would be stupid to think otherwise.

For example...

If the laws of physics were consistently violated in the favor of one particular religious group.

If someone claiming to be god came to Earth and was able to do things that completely defied known laws (like morphing a dog into an elephant, levitating everyone on Earth simultaneously etc.

If tomorrow, all wars and conflict ended.

If we woke up tomorrow and Pokemon were real.

If Half Life 3 releases.

If everyone simultaneously heard the same identical message in their minds saying "yo watup. I'm god. Here's what I need you to do from now on.

There are literally millions and millions of ways an omnipotent god who wanted people to know about his existence could prove it. Instead he used the "tell people about it in a book that contains unverifiable information" method.

If there is a god, he's a rather poor communicator.

In fact, it's one of the most logical and consistent part (or one of the best tricks) of the Bible. If God proved in a efficient and clear way Its existence, there would not be free will for faith. And this free will is fundamental. In fact, a confusing and unprovable Bible even make sense  from this point of view. But anyway, what is the topic about, God as a concept, or God as described in the Bible (or an equivalent) ?





Torillian on 30 January 2016
Dulfite said:
Torillian said:
Dulfite said:

As for your last point, it's a heart thing. God desires people to come to HIM and to receive HIS blessing of salvation, but people refuse and reject HIM time and time again. And people, all of us, are deserving of the punishments of eternal separation from God (we kill each other, lie to each other, commit all kinds of sexual immorality, and the list goes on). But God, being merciful, offered THE way out of that in Jesus Christ. Blaming God for people going to hell when he has freely offered the way out of it is like blaming a firefighter on a lader extending his hand to someone in a burning building and that person rejecting the hand, it just doesn't make sense. 

God makes the rules and then decides what's required for him to "forgive us" our transgressions.  

In your analogy that would be like if the Firefighter lit the person's house on fire, and then when reaching out his hand said that you'll have to love him in order for him to save you.  

 

No, because mankind was not originally in sin when God create us. We put ourselves into sin and therefore the burning house. It's not like we, as a species, were created in the burning house.

God made the rule that he can't abide sin.  He's all powerful, why does he have requirements to his forgiveness?  He decided that everyone who doesn't love him goes to hell.  He absolutely lit the house on fire.  





...

JWeinCom on 30 January 2016
Norris2k said:
JWeinCom said:
Oh absolutely. 100% proof? Probably not. But there could be enough proof that it would be stupid to think otherwise.

For example...

If the laws of physics were consistently violated in the favor of one particular religious group.

If someone claiming to be god came to Earth and was able to do things that completely defied known laws (like morphing a dog into an elephant, levitating everyone on Earth simultaneously etc.

If tomorrow, all wars and conflict ended.

If we woke up tomorrow and Pokemon were real.

If Half Life 3 releases.

If everyone simultaneously heard the same identical message in their minds saying "yo watup. I'm god. Here's what I need you to do from now on.

There are literally millions and millions of ways an omnipotent god who wanted people to know about his existence could prove it. Instead he used the "tell people about it in a book that contains unverifiable information" method.

If there is a god, he's a rather poor communicator.

In fact, it's one of the most logical and consistent part (or one of the best tricks) of the Bible. If God proved in a efficient and clear way Its existence, there would not be free will for faith. And this free will is fundamental. In fact, a confusing and unprovable Bible even make sense  from this point of view. But anyway, what is the topic about, God as a concept, or God as described in the Bible (or an equivalent) ?

How would there not be free will?  Knowing there is a god does not mean you have to obey him.  Adam, Eve, and Satan certainly knew there was a god, but that didn't mean they didn't have the free will to define him.