Question: Can you prove there's such a thing as God?

[revrosado]

Science is that which is reproduceable in a laboratory.

Science means knowledge. It infers truth, however, truth is always a perception of man for man is limited in his knowledge of the universe.

Atheists cannot be atheists - because they would need to have all the knowledge of the universe, and be able to sense every inch of it (be God in fact) in order to say there is no God. In fact God says "There is no other God!"

Agnostic is more akin to what is intellectually feasible.

Science and man's limited perspection is however, drawing closer day by day to the Biblical truths.

Science studies God's creation - it cannot be anti-God. It would show the handiwork of God. In it you will see God's message to man. Science teaches the existence of God and his relation to man and desire for man. Science tells the Gospel story (oh I mean Myth :? ). Science teaches the eternal state (the afterlife). It teaches everything I have read in the Bible.

So before anybody discounts either science or the Bible - you better know a lot about both!

[revrosado]

Faith is defined in the Bible. Hebrews 11:1

It is science, creation and action - the essence and substance of all. Faith is mis applied and mis understood by most.

It is not an invisible thing or belief (which is another word diverged from its true meaning).

Faith is reality as we have the power to make it.
Faith is not ignorance. Faith is not religious belief.

Faith is the Divine made manifest in our lives.

Faith is the image of God's power in man.

[AMbomb]

Science is not limited to that which is reproducable in a lab, not at all. Plenty of science is done outside the lab. A great deal of science is done in the mind. Atheism is a feeling, just as the belief in God is a feeling. At the moment, we can't prove there's no such thing as God. Of course, you can't prove there is such a thing as God. To me, the idea of an omnipotent being who created the Universe is absurd. Science may or may not support my feeling at some point in the future. But that is my feeling.

[jcr4runner]

How can we know anything to be true? AMBomb claims science is the path to true knowledge. Science has two applications for discovering knowledge.

1. Science that is reproducible in a lab is called experimental science.

2. That which is seen by observation is empirical science.

Monotheism is any religion that says there is only one God who is the Supreme Being in the universe.

Atheism is any philosophy that claims that man is the highest intelligence in the universe.

It is interesting that atheism did not exist as a working philosophy until the age of rationalism in the 1700s. But even then the rationalist religion was Deism -- the idea that scientific law ruled the universe without the interference of a Creator God who may have created the universe, but did not have a personal relationship with His creation. Atheism didn't come about as a developed philosophy until the late 18th century to early 19th century.

While the Bible which states that atheism and polytheism came about as man's mind became darkened by sin, the rationalists presupposed that monotheism evolved from a primitive animism.

The argument of every atheist scientist or philosopher -- whether Freud, Voltaire, Marx, Nietzsche -- is always the same. Primitive man needed a god or gods to explain the natural phenomena that threatened man. If a man threatens your life, you can negotiate a peace, but if natural forces threaten your life -- storms, fires, animals, disease -- you must negotiate with the spirit behind that force. The primitive animist lived in fear always trying to appease the spirit world he did not understand. The atheist hypothesized that theism eventually evolved out of a primitive animism. Eventually, they thought, as science provided the answers to man's problems, the need to believe in God would become obsolete.

While this approach is logical, it contains an extremely flawed presuppostion -- that a natural human being can know anything to be "true."

The fallacy of philosophical systems, such as deistic rationalism or atheism, is bound up in the feigned existence of human autonomy. If human beings are autonomous, then they have no Creator to which they are accountable. If human beings are products of chance, then there is no possibility of knowing anything to be true.

The problem with this way of thinking was perhaps best expressed by the evolutionist Charles Darwin (who remained a theist in his later life). Charles Darwin recognized this problem when he wrote in a letter:

"The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Darwin, Charles, 1881. Letter to W. Graham. In F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles ... s1_08.html

Rationalism declared the autonomy of human reason. The problem, however, is that human reason may very well be the delusion of human beings who are scientifically speaking nothing more than meaningless pieces of protoplasm wandering aimlessly through the void.

Monotheism can be arrived at by natural thought processes. The fact that we can know anything to be true presupposes an all-knowing Creator of the universe. Christian theism can only come about by presupposing special revelation in the form of the written Word of God.

Therefore, the Christian apologetic must make its beginning from the presupposition that the Lord Christ, the Creator of the universe, speaks to man with an absolute authority and is the source of all Truth. In fact, only a philosophy that presupposes an all-knowing Supreme Being can claim that man can know anything to be true with certainty. Only Christianity can explain the personal nature and characteristics of this Supreme Being.

[jcr4runner]

If the our minds are an accidental consequence of purposeless physical laws, why should we believe they give us knowledge?

The fundamental problem with atheism to account for knowledge is captured in this quote from C. S. Lewis:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

- C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970) pp. 52-53.
Quoted from: http://filebox.vt.edu/s/sgc/Quotes.html

[AMbomb]

You're forgetting theoretical science. Atheism is not a philosophy. I already explained what atheism is. It doesn't fit the definition of a philosophy. Furthermore, it's possible to be an atheist believe man's not the highest intelligence in the Universe (aliens). Of course a natural (as opposed to unnatural?) human being can know things to be true. I know lots of things to be true. I didn't know what atheist scientists and philosphers have said until I read your message. But, I've been saying something along those lines for some time. And it's worth pointing out that Europe has already de-Christianized and the United States is in the process. 14% of British who took a survey about Jesus didn't even know who he supposedly was! The percentage of the population of the United States that is Christian dropped from 86.2 to 76.5 from 1990 to 2001. Other parts of the world that are less educated and less scientifically advanced are still clinging to religion. But, it's definitely on the decline in the developed world. You say that Christian theism can only come about by presupposing special revelation in the form of the written word of God. Why in the multiverse would you presuppose such a thing? There's absolutely no reason to. There is no proof that there's such a thing as God.

[jcr4runner]

You're forgetting theoretical science. Atheism is not a philosophy. ... And it's worth pointing out that Europe has already de-Christianized and the United States is in the process. 14% of British who took a survey about Jesus didn't even know who he supposedly was! The percentage of the population of the United States that is Christian dropped from 86.2 to 76.5 from 1990 to 2001. Other parts of the world that are less educated and less scientifically advanced are still clinging to religion. But, it's definitely on the decline in the developed world. ....

Theoretical science is either experimental or empirical. The word atheist means literally the belief ("ism") that there is no ("a") God ("theos").

But that is besides the point.

Atheism was not developed as a philosophy until the 18th century and you are correct in saying it is not a consistent "philosophy" (love of knowledge) at all because atheism relies on naturalism to explain the universe's origin. And this is where you cannot refute my point: As Darwin and others have pointed out: If man is just a product of random forces, then how do we know that any of our thoughts are reliable?

If a philosophy seeks true knowledge, then atheism denies true knowledge.

You say that as man gets more sophisticated, he will forget about God. But how will people in the future look at your "primitive" atheism?

As Nietzsche wrote in Also Sprach Zarathustra:

"What is the ape to man? A figure of fun or an embarrassment. Man will appear exactly the same to the superman."

Ironically, Nietzsche pinpoints the contradiction of naturalism and atheism. It leads only to a desperate nihilism. Nihilism is nothing more than naturalism brought to its logical conclusion. A consistent naturalist who presupposes that knowledge and reason are possible has virtually no way to prove it. At least he cannot explain why he is conscious of his own thoughts and reasoning. He is forced to concede "nothingness."

The consistent naturalist also is forced to concede that ethics -- as a system of consequences resulting from moral actions -- exists. However, if God does not exist, then man is never guilty of having violated any "higher moral law." He is left only with "feelings of guilt." But what use does guilt serve? Man ought to deny those feelings of guilt if possible. Yet the feeling of having done a moral wrong persists in people everywhere. As Henry David Thoreau wrote in Walden, "All men live lives of quiet desperation." There is no possibility of transcendent forgiveness in a universe without God. These feelings of guilt can lead only to the despair of nihilism.

The nihilist is like the person who climbs to the top of a hill at night and stares into the starry universe. When he asks a non-existent Supreme Being, "What is the meaning of life?" there is absolutely no reply. Man innately senses that he must have a purpose and destiny, but naturalism offers no answer except eventual annihilation. Since man is an innately moral creature, the loss of meaning leads to hopelessness or nihilism.

Of course, nihilism (like atheism) as a consistent philosophy is impossible. From meaninglessness nothing at all is logical -- or else everything is logical. Nihilism is a belief in nothing. Yet to affirm that "nothing exists" is to affirm a belief in everything that is able to be known.

An Atheist who believes in "no god," first affirms the concept of God, and then affirms that he must know everything in order to know for sure that God does not exist outside the realm of his knowledge. But for a finite mind to know everything is impossible. Thus nihilism can never be a belief, but only a feeling of the despair of meaninglessness. The fact that man is prone to these psychological and emotional disorders is in itself a motive to seek meaning, value, beauty, virtue, destiny and purpose. At best nihilism can only affirm that there are deep questions that challenge the hearts and minds of men -- but there are no easy answers.

[AMbomb]

Why do you keep talking about atheism as a philosophy? This is from dictionary.com:
phi·los·o·phy Audio pronunciation of "philosophy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
None of these fits the definition of atheist as you stated it.

[revrosado]

You use science in the form of Knowledge. But I use science in the sense of the testing of natural phenomenon for understanding - this is laboratory science. Empirical science is not always accepted as "proof" or conclusive. Empiricism is prone to personal individualistic perceptions and interpretation. Theoretical science is jsut that - theory based.

Careful handling of knowledge is essential for proper comprehension. Proper reasoning skills is essential for understanding.

JC - I would appreciate if you can amplify your statement concerning the inability of unbelievers to understand if not by faith - is that to say that man cannot come to a comprehension of truth (or/ or of God) via the created things?

[AMbomb]

You use science in the form of Knowledge. But I use science in the sense of the testing of natural phenomenon for understanding - this is laboratory science. Empirical science is not always accepted as "proof" or conclusive. Empiricism is prone to personal individualistic perceptions and interpretation. Theoretical science is jsut that - theory based.

Careful handling of knowledge is essential for proper comprehension. Proper reasoning skills is essential for understanding.

What's your point?

[jcr4runner]

JC - I would appreciate if you can amplify your statement concerning the inability of unbelievers to understand if not by faith - is that to say that man cannot come to a comprehension of truth (or/ or of God) via the created things?

If you will read Romans 1, you will find that Paul says that a comprehension of God can be had through natural means. But this level of belief only condemns us. Salvation can only come by supernatural means by God's grace through an impartation of faith. The atheist can know that God exists, but he refuses to acknowledge it because he "suppresses truth in unrighteousness" according to Paul. Ultimately people believe or not because God justifies or condemns them -- and not vice versa.

Maybe AMBomb cannot believe because God has not enabled him to?

I can hope this is not true, but ultimately the outcome is by God's grace, not through argument.

[revrosado]

JC - Thank you for your reply. I read Romans 1 entirely and cannot come to the same conclusion you have. Specifically you said that the knowledge of the natural things CONDEMNS us. Paul does not say that - he merely states that no one will have an excuse because all the natural things show God and His Glory -

Rom. 1:20
20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

It is not that the knowledge condemns but rather their own refusal to admit God, to conclude that God created all these things we call science and nature. There is the leap of faith from the visible things that clearly show God (science) to the acknowledgement of God which requires humility. See vs. 21, 22, 23, and 25.

verse 28
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Salvation can only be by faith but faith is as defined in Heb.11:1. It is substance and evidence. Nothing discards science / knowledge as a basis for coming to Salvation. To wit, Jesus said himself that those who learn of the Father cometh to Him.. John 6:45. The whole pretense of Apologetics is to defend with knowledge. Science is and will become known as the greatest apologetical device ever employed: by our creator Himself.

And I submit that the end of our journey shall inherently conclude with knowledge. And that all Christian growth is based on knowledge to one degree to another. I have never heard a good scientific argument against the One. Yet most Christians I meet shun away from it. Atheists love to cite it but they too have little command of the sciences and fail to realize that the sciences point toward the One (as Christians do).

1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

1 John 2:20
(20) But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things

Knowledge puffeth up - but ignorance has made many far more bloated. :)

As far as I have read on this forum, I truly enjoy your style jc...I pray that you are continually strenghtened and used greatly in defense of The Kingdom.

As for me I depart now having done what was needed. Those that seek shall find.

Regards.....

[jcr4runner]

It is not that the knowledge condemns but rather their own refusal to admit God, to conclude that God created all these things we call science and nature.

I didn't realize I was making any more than a fine distinction between the two.

[Greg1242]

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? Paul answers, For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. But we preach Christ, crucified. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than man, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1Corth 20-25; And John writes, That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life..... Jesus. 1john 1-2, Jesus himself calls himself God, I and the Father are one. John 10:30.... So to answer your question, there is a God who for us shed His equality with God and took on flesh and coming in the likeness of man and went willingly to the cross. Seen and touched and recorded by eye witnesses in the Historical book called the Bible. Even the historian Joesephus, a non believer mentions Jesus in his writings. You can not see God until he reveals Himself to you and as Paul on damasus Road will proclaim, He does exsist. You will not find Him until he enables you to seek Him( thats another discussion). Keep refuting Him and I guarantee you you will one day see Him.... that at the name of Jesus, Every(that includes you) knee will bow.

[kurtbryd]

If there was such a thing as God, it would be easy for him to do something that would erase all doubts of his existence. Since that hasn't happened, we can logically conclude that the Christian belief in a god who wants people to believe in him is wrong.

Yes you are right as god hasn't proved his existence yet. But remember the word "yet". If any day god give any indication of his existence then all religious history would be rewritten because i personally believe Christian religion is a fake one. But there may be a god