Does God want us to be able to proof his existence?????

[Anonymous]

There are universities who have Parapsychology in their curriculum so im sure the CIA isnt the only institute.

Maybe you should look further under theological science. Much research is done after the psychological and sociological effects of religion.

[Anonymous]

I request that you make an honest decision on your motivations for being here in accordance with purpose of this board, and make a judgement on whether this board is really for you.

Kurieuo: I found your forum after following some Google links on 'Junk DNA'. Because the site seemed interested in proving the existence of God I assumed you were inviting debate. I certainly DO NOT mean to offend ANYONE here + of course respect your right to believe ANYTHING you want. If you all truly don't want me posting here I won't.

How many scientists do you see doing real research in the subject of the paranormal? Hardly any. It is considered "ridiculous" and as a result, it is ignored. You can't say there is no evidence when you don't even bother to look.

As Erasmus said: They DID do the research but found nothing. Back in the 70's nearly every university had some studies going. Not one verifiable (again, double blind, repeatable) demonstration worked.

i dont think we will ever prove 100% to everyone that God exists. someone somewhere will just ignore it or set some rediculus standard of what they consider proof.

But I'm not asking for COMPLETE proof, just ANY direct proof (in a scientific sense). All your 'proof' is indirect.

It seems very convenient to me for theists to posit an all powerful God that then uses his power to hide ALL direct evidence of his existence.

Occam's Razor says you should always pick the simplest sufficient explanation when all else is equal. The complex scenario theists use to explain an invisible + hidden God just seems too fantastic to me to be plausible.

Will

[Mastermind]

I disagree. The scenarios atheists impose are far more complicated. The trigger that caused the Big Bang for example. Theists have one cause: God. Atheists have nothing, and instead rely on a complex system of universes contracting and expanding, etc. God's presence has been felt and witnessed by many. My own experiences in the paranormal are too convincing for me to ever accept atheism as even remotely true. In addition, the research universities do relies on the Scientific Method. I believe newton(or some other father of the scientific revolution) clearly stated the paranormal cannot be measured using the scientific method, especially since we may not have the necessary tools. As for them being unsuccessful, i know there are quite a few unexplained haunting cases that scientists can't for the life of them figure out a rational explanation for. The faces of Belmez are a particularly undeniable example.

http://www.thecobrasnose.com/xxghost/belmez.html
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/ar ... lmez.shtml
http://throwpots.com/belmez.htm

There are plenty of occurances studied in detail and labeled as paranormal, if one should look. Having hardened atheist professors doing research in the field is like melting ice with liquid nitrogen. We need some real government sponsored programs run by people who actually believe in their work, rather than who has the better PhD.

[Kurieuo]

But I'm not asking for COMPLETE proof, just ANY direct proof (in a scientific sense). All your 'proof' is indirect.

In your own words, you've already made up your mind. So you're not asking for anything and so shouldn't really be posting here.

It seems very convenient to me for theists to posit an all powerful God that then uses his power to hide ALL direct evidence of his existence.

It seems very convenient to me for Atheists (weak and strong alike), to remain willingly ignorant of all evidence that would lead to a belief in God as the most plausible explanation.

Occam's Razor says you should always pick the simplest sufficient explanation when all else is equal. The complex scenario theists use to explain an invisible + hidden God just seems too fantastic to me to be plausible.

And how we as theists would respond, is that God is in no way hidden, and any naturalistic explanation is too simple to explain the whole scenario before us.

Kurieuo.

PS. As already pointed out, this is not a board to push ones agenda against Christianity. Further such posts will be removed.

[Anonymous]

It seems to be hard for both parties (atheist vs theist) to keep this discussion objective, somehow we keep polarizing each other.

I will be honoust: I believe in god, im inspired by the inmense depth and wisdom in the bible and i love,,,,,, i mean LOVE Jesus Christ but:

Now im speaking to the Christians:
There are some facts in the bible that are hard to match with contemporary science. For instance, the idea of Adam and Eve being the first and only humans is practical untenable.
So when such things are proofed to be untrue, are you willing as a Christian to modifie your view???? I think you should, because we are not living in 20ac. In order to convince an atheist you must think like one. Cliche arguments like "how could a complex world like this exist out of his own" or "you can't proof that he DOESN't exist". Convince an atheist with facts, figures and clear theories.

Now im speaking to Atheists:
Even if Adam and Eve didnt exist, and Jesus didnt walk on water, that still doesnt rule out that god doesnt excist. Christianity is such an essential aspect of the modern western world that it cant be denied. So even atheists should study the bible and learn from it.
There are a lot of historical facts and figures wich DO seem to fit. The only problem is that most intelectual Christian are either to lazy, or they dont understand how they could convince an atheist.

[Felgar]

For instance, the idea of Adam and Eve being the first and only humans is practical untenable.
So when such things are proofed to be untrue, are you willing as a Christian to modifie your view???? I think you should, because we are not living in 20ac.

Indeed, when new scientific knowledge becomes available then certain presumptions about the meaning of scripture can and do change. For instance, 300 years ago there'd be no reason to look deeply into other explanations for creation that a simple 6-day time period. But now, given ever-increasing evidence that the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old, the original interpretation may once again be scrutinized. Though we need to be very careful about how quickly we jump to conclusions - most current scientific theories will be replaced in due time.

Some things though, will NEVER change in the face of new knowledge. Every person is a sinner, and every one requires salvation. And salvation is only attained by grace from God through Faith in His son, Jesus Christ. The most important parts of the Bible have no link to science at all.

I don't agree with your reasoning that the story of Adam and Eve is untenable. For starters it can be concluded that much of the diversity found among human races is a result of the tower of babel.

[Mastermind]

Now im speaking to the Christians:
There are some facts in the bible that are hard to match with contemporary science. For instance, the idea of Adam and Eve being the first and only humans is practical untenable.
So when such things are proofed to be untrue, are you willing as a Christian to modifie your view???? I think you should, because we are not living in 20ac. In order to convince an atheist you must think like one. Cliche arguments like "how could a complex world like this exist out of his own" or "you can't proof that he DOESN't exist". Convince an atheist with facts, figures and clear theories.

It is almost impossible to verify whether Adam and Eve existed through science(there is no evidence for or against it). We can only go back so far, but without a time machine we will never know for sure. At any rate, I have my own theories about Genesis, in which I won't get into without doing some further research.

[Kurieuo]

There are some facts in the bible that are hard to match with contemporary science. For instance, the idea of Adam and Eve being the first and only humans is practical untenable.
So when such things are proofed to be untrue, are you willing as a Christian to modifie your view???? I think you should, because we are not living in 20ac. In order to convince an atheist you must think like one. Cliche arguments like "how could a complex world like this exist out of his own" or "you can't proof that he DOESN't exist". Convince an atheist with facts, figures and clear theories.

In my opinion, Atheists need to reach a point in their life where they become more receptive, something I believe is only accomplished through the Holy Spirit's drawing. Only then will seeds of knowledge begin to sink in. It is not our duty to convince, only present information.

Additionally, I believe Science is entirely compatible with the Bible and vice-versa, so one need not modify their view if both have been interpreted correctly. If one is incorrect, either Scripture is being interpreted incorrectly, or Science is. That's my approach.

I'm also assuming you take a multiregional evolutionary model? I'd perhaps recommend reading over http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... ional.html. Yet some Christians do taken an allegoric view of Adam and Eve, although I can't say I find such a view tasteful.

What essentially matters to Christianity is Christ and the events surrounding His life. This is foundational.

There are a lot of historical facts and figures wich DO seem to fit. The only problem is that most intelectual Christian are either to lazy, or they dont understand how they could convince an atheist.

Again, I don't think it is our job to convince, but only to share. A Christian should however, definately understand common objections and be able to respond to them. Something that is strongly encouraged at this board.

Kurieuo.

[RGeeB]

Spiritual forces run rampant in poorer nations.

I agree - The default position for the majority of the world's population is the existence of being(s) superior to humans who decide the fate of conciousness beyond physical death - god(s) and afterlife.

I approached life form that default position and I have to admit that disproving God seldom proved to be a wise approach to handling life.

[Preach]

Interesting topic. My take on this is as follows:
There is much evidence that points to the existance of a Creator, but I am of the belief that He simply chooses to no longer make himself blatantly obvious, like He did in the Old Testement and early New Testement times. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man really speaks to me. See, the rich man died and went to Hell. He asked God to reveal himself to his brothers so they would not share the same fate. What was God's reply? "They have Moses and the Prophets. Who would believe, even if I raised the dead?" Hmmmm. Interesting, no?
As to why God would reveal himself early on, then suddenly choose not to...I have an idea, although I hope it does not offend anyone here. I suspect that we are all naturally born as "atheists"...think about it. A small child has no concept of a God until he/she first hears about it from his/her parents. So, mankind had to have God reveal himself in very obvious ways in order for a relationship between God and man to be established. Nowadays, we have "Moses and the Prophets", plus the fact that the skies "declare the glory of God" (cosmological constant, evidence that the universe had a beginning, etc, etc). In these times, faith is very important, for faith is the "substance of things unseen", etc. We have to walk in faith because the days of walking by sight (read that to mean God doing wonderous, obvious works at least once every generation) are over. In that sense, we have it harder than the ancients did.
As for debating with atheists (a topic frequently brought up here, it seems), I belive it serves no purpose, for a hardcore atheist intends to STAY that way, and at worst, debating an atheist can be extremely dangerous for those weak in the faith and/or don't have an extensice knowlege of both science and history. Understand that many atheists who like to debate christians are not actually interested in trying to "understand the way christians think". Those would be what you call evangelical atheists in that they actively try to win new converts. "Debate" is the evangelical atheist's version of the christian's "witnessing". Many arguments they use sound so logical, but are actually logical traps intended to make an unwary christian who is unskilled in the art of debate look like a total fool. I have seen many holy-rolling, on-fire-for-god, christian folks become staunch atheists after wading into debates with these types.