Proof God exists

Funsterdelux

CatStevens wrote:

Funsterdelux
Did ya ask me that yesterday, maybe I didn't notice that or your entire post, anyway, I already wrote a disclaimer in my sig + profile.

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

No I asked you another question and I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

CatStevens

Funsterdelux

Funsterdelux wrote:

I asked you another question and I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

well, maybe it isn't that much important, at least which page & post no.

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Funsterdelux

Allah will give you the time and patience to find that such post, my brother.

there was a problem there,

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote:

To the non believer, yes that holds true. IMO the believer will tell/discover a different story.

True, if you refuse to accept the scientific explination, as say Creationists do, then the scientific model without God doesn't work.

Asiaprod wrote:

I wonder what would indeed happen if tomorrow someone came along and proved conclusively that there was no God. What would believers do? How would they react?

The beauty (if that is the right word) of the God concept is that that can never happen.

God is always a concept behind you. You turn around, it is still behind you. Most believers are happy with that. I see on the sceptics forum that the new Pope has criticised western society for being too scientifically interested.

Schuhart

CatStevens wrote:

Anyway, I glanced some posts here, well, I think some of you agree that God's existence is possible so the one who believes that he/she isn't atheist in my opinion

I’m not sure this is really the conclusion to be drawn. As I understand it, the point of this thread was to unveil a proof for the existence of God. We seem to all agree that no such proof exists, and that religion is a matter of faith – which is pretty much where most of us came in.

edanto

Hey Funster... not in the habit of repeating yourself... loving that double post!!

CatStevens

Schuhart

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not sure this is really the conclusion to be drawn. As I understand it, the point of this thread was to unveil a proof for the existence of God. We seem to all agree that no such proof exists, and that religion is a matter of faith – which is pretty much where most of us came in.

Dear did ya read my posts?
please I don't like to quote over and over again, I already explained this matta
Post No: 36

Zulu wrote:

...but Adam never existed.

CatStevens wrote:

proof?

Zulu wrote:

How about you prove he did?

CatStevens wrote:

maybe we should discuss about God's existence first, what do you think

Zulu wrote:

I think you shouldn't try to hijack this thread. If you wish to discuss God's existence - start another thread and I'll happily discuss.

robindch

robindch wrote:

Um, do you have any evidence for this which is more substantial than in some books written a very long time ago?

CatStevens wrote:

As I said to one of the members here, I think to discuss this we have to discuss God's existence first

5uspect wrote:

you have to admit there is no proof that any of it is true.

CatStevens wrote:

No, I admit it is true and there is proof, as for proof every person may has its own proof, like many has their own experience which provd something to them bla bla bla

Zulu wrote:

You say there is proof - care to provide it?

CatStevens wrote:

I already siad to someone here to start new thread, let's discuss there

Zulu wrote:

You either have proof or you don't - and you don't, but thats ok; we can discuss. Just don't claim to have proof when you don't, because thats a lie

CatStevens wrote:

I have and to note something what I may say it as proof you may not

Zulu wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here

CatStevens wrote:

I meant if some one show me something as a proof for something I may accept it as a proof but you may not accept it as a proog get it=).

Wicknight wrote:

I've started a new thread for you, we await this "proof" with baited breath.

Asiaprod wrote:

It is probably a good idea to stop telling us that we might or might not accept it

CatStevens wrote:

I was talking generally, I mean whether a proof was to prove god or whteva
Ok, dudes, move to the new thread. see ya there

CatStevens wrote:

anyway I think we reached the point which is God's existence is possible I don't know if any of you guys have ever read the Qur'aan or about Muhammad (and the reason of chosing him as the last messenger) , Myself I always believed in his existence my parents weren't atheists, Qur'aan just made things clearer to me, anyway so to convince ourselves more there are other ways
1) Experience, which many don't accept it,Myself Actually I read many true stories, people can have an experience which proves His existence, And those who experienc such things I think most of them do already believe in His existence or are sincerely and seriously looking for an answer, when you reach the point that his existence is possible, ask him seriously, God please convince me if you aren't a lie, not a mere question, try to look for the answer by reading etc
Jeremiah 33:3 'Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know.
This is very true, just give it a real sincere chance , a chance from your deep Some people called him while they are prostrating, it gives good results , but unless your heart is prostrating your prostrating and call is meaningless, I wish you all will read the Qur'aan his message (as I claim)
read this story
2)try to read what ppl call it (the word of God) Why Allah chose Muhammad and Jesus as prophets? to me Qur'aan (I read t the entire Qur'aan) & Muhammad, different type of experiences convinced me (i.e. these are my proofs, remember what I said before what I consider it as a proof you may not, he said that I don't have and I have to admit that no I think I have, these three things convinced me, they are my proofs, I digged Qur'aan and Muhammad's (pbuh) life). so to many ppl, does Allah exist ? it is possible, yes, does his inexistence possible ? yes as well, so you aren't atheist, try the 2 things

The Atheist wrote:

The 'proofs' you've put forward relate to an anonymous creator..

CatStevens wrote:

I was discussing not giving direct proofs such discussings leads you to believe or not

Zulu wrote:

I fail to see how this proves the existance of a God

CatStevens wrote:

Dear I didn't say that these are proofs , these examples has a point which I wish you got it and they lead us to some questions which led me to believe that His existence isn't impossble, get it

Zulu wrote:

Possiability does not equate to truth

CatStevens wrote:

yeah but then you can start your own journey to know whether this possibility is true or not

Zulu wrote:

So as an agnostic, I don't deserve proof? or debate? Are my arguments not as valid; if you prick me do I not bleed?

CatStevens wrote:

I didn't say that dear =D but you know we have to discuss his existence possibilty first 'cause I think we have some Atheists here

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zillah

Cat, you'll do everyone a favour, including yourself, if you drop the colours and weird formatting, use a spell checker and make some attempt at using correct grammar.

Dades

Well you are right in that what is a form of proof to you, may not be to others.

I can't help but think your personal proofs revolve around proving what you want to be true (in the same way creation science is all about confirming what will not be denied).

Were you brought up a muslim, or did you stumble upon your beliefs in a search for truth?

Zombrex

So we have established that there is no proof, evidence or logic for the existence of God (or Adam for that matter)

That it is possible that God exists, but only in so far as in that anything is technically possible, including a tea pot flying around the sun that was made by little old ladies that live on the Moon.

But it is either unlikely (if you argnostic) or very very very very unlikely to the point of being certain (if you are atheist), that He does.

As Schuhart said, this is where most of us came in.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

So we have established that there is no proof, evidence or logic for the existence of God (or Adam for that matter)

That it is possible that God exists, but only in so far as in that anything is technically possible, including a tea pot flying around the sun that was made by little old ladies that live on the Moon.

But it is either unlikely (if you argnostic) or very very very very unlikely to the point of being certain (if you are atheist), that He does.

And not worth worshipping in any case, if you're an alatrist...

Wicknight wrote:

As Schuhart said, this is where most of us came in.

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went."

cordially,
Scofflaw

Funsterdelux

Everyone, the proof is in the pudding, and I dont see any pudding whatsoever.

pH

Funsterdelux wrote:

Everyone, the proof is in the pudding, and I dont see any pudding whatsoever.

[PEDANTIC MODE]Proof in puddings?[/PEDANTIC MODE]

Proof of the pudding
Meaning - To fully test something you need to experience it.

Origin
This phrase is just shorthand for 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. That makes sense at least, whereas the shortened version really doesn't mean anything. Nor does the often quoted incorrect version 'the proof is in the pudding'. Many people fail to see the sense of any of these though. The meaning become clear when it is realised that proof here means test. The more common meaning of proof in our day and age is the noun form, with the meaning 'demonstrating something to be true' - as in a mathematical or legal proof. The verb form, meaning 'to test' is less often used these days, although it does survive in several commonly used phrases: 'the exception that proves the rule', 'proof-read', 'proving-ground', etc. Clearly the distinction between these two forms of the word was originally quite slight and the proof in a 'showing to be true' sense is merely the successful outcome of a test of whether a proposition is correct or not.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/proof-of-the-pudding.html

Funsterdelux

pH wrote:

[PEDANTIC MODE]Proof in puddings?[/PEDANTIC MODE]

Proof of the pudding
Meaning - To fully test something you need to experience it.

Origin
This phrase is just shorthand for 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'. That makes sense at least, whereas the shortened version really doesn't mean anything. Nor does the often quoted incorrect version 'the proof is in the pudding'. Many people fail to see the sense of any of these though. The meaning become clear when it is realised that proof here means test. The more common meaning of proof in our day and age is the noun form, with the meaning 'demonstrating something to be true' - as in a mathematical or legal proof. The verb form, meaning 'to test' is less often used these days, although it does survive in several commonly used phrases: 'the exception that proves the rule', 'proof-read', 'proving-ground', etc. Clearly the distinction between these two forms of the word was originally quite slight and the proof in a 'showing to be true' sense is merely the successful outcome of a test of whether a proposition is correct or not.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/proof-of-the-pudding.html

Well Im not going to swallow it anyway.

Our feline friend will no doubt, eat his share.

guildofevil

bubonicus wrote:

Atheists have as much faith in believing there is no god as Chirtstian/Muslim etc... have in believing god does exist.

No. That's not true.

Faith is belief without proof, or despite proof to the contrary.

I did not decide to become an atheist because I dislike the idea of god. I examined my belief in god and found it unreasonable. Only then did I become an atheist.

I do not subscribe to any belief which cannot be proven, there for I am an Atheist.

Not only does this not require faith, but it is a rejection of it as illogical.

My world view is based on the best information available to me at the time. If that information changes, so will my world view. If you claim to have proof of the existence of God, I will consider it.

Atheism differs from theism in many ways, but most significantly, unlike any theist belief, it does not claim to have all the answers. For an atheist, it's OK NOT to know something, but it is not OK to simply believe the unlikely, without proof.

Just because we don't know how the universe came into being, is no reason to believe in ludicrous ancient fairy stories about a creator making people out of mud or corn or whatever, just so that he has someone to worship him (usually ably assisted by some sort of priestly class, which is there to tell you how to interpret his desires, asking only that they be allowed massive amounts of money and/or political power in return).

Nalz

guildofevil wrote:

My world view is based on the best information available to me at the time. If that information changes, so will my world view. If you claim to have proof of the existence of God, I will consider it.

agreed, even if these God/Gods existed...dont you think that they would want us to be the best people we can be - in terms of respecting and loving one another while living life to best way we can?

i reckon if we all concentrate on respecting and caring for one another etc instead of rattling on about it...any God would be happy with that.

lets do a good oul job of living life the right way eh???

Binomate

Funniest thread ever?

Zillah

Binomate wrote:

Funniest thread ever?

Heeey, you're only pretending to be banned!

And the creationism thread is by far the funniest actually.

sonic juice

our civilization was created by a cluster of concepts or ideologies that if we trace far enough back derived from an abstract inception,all human concocted,all beliefs etc we have a sense of now are myths.Descartes "I think,therefore I am" so we do exist.And well something ignited that,some kind of god, nobody can possibly know what!eveyone should be agnostic-what do we know except within the context that we created in the first place.The labyrinth continues like an eternal fictional novel emotional, meaningless yet beautiful,just my opinion,it's cool whatever you think.If i do stumble upon god on the cold ground by my feet I shall write to ya all.:cool:

Zombrex

guildofevil wrote:

I do not subscribe to any belief which cannot be proven, there for I am an Atheist.

Not only does this not require faith, but it is a rejection of it as illogical.

That is a good point. Faith implies desire to believe something despite the fact that there is little rational reason too.

I have no desire to not believe in God.

This doesn't fullfill some need in my life or provide me with any easy answers. It doesn't help fit the world into a nice package, if anything it makes things wide open.

In fact I would rather believe in God, given the choice (blue pill or red pill Neo). It would sort out a lot of things for me, such as universal morality and the afterlife.

There is no faith in my rejection of the concept of God. It is based simply on the fact that I see no logical reason to believe that human concept of gods and godessess is actually based in reality.