Evidence for God from Science

An interesting dialogue about whether there is proof of God's existence:

https://carm.org/proof-i-want-proof

I often ask what proof would be enough for the skeptic to believe in God.
The answer:
None.
Belief is a choice and the skeptic chooses NOT to believe what evidence is presented.
That is his/her right of course.

Paul: Belief is a choice and the skeptic chooses NOT to believe what evidence is presented.
That is his/her right of course.

Exactly, Paul! I was just thinking about the fellow Byblos prolifically engaged with, as he noted the necessary foundational linkages for all that exists. He explored all options and necessary foundational linkages - it seems to have done little good. But it was instructional in revealing just how hard that fellow was willing to cling to his unbelief, despite the immense and obvious impossibility of believing what he does. BTW, Byblos did a remarkable and exceptionally patient job of interacting with him!

I remember that.
Here is the thing, billions of people believe in God so there is, at least, enough evidence for all those people so to say there isn't ANY is, well, silly.

One can argue that some people require MORE evidence or require more convincing ( whatever that may mean) evidence.

That said, I have seen people presented with scientific facts that can lead one to God and seen them argue away those FACTS because they realized that going down that road would indeed, lead them to God.

Seems like skeptics are comfortable with THEIR view of God, the one that they can disprove easily and make fun of.

That's not entirely true, Antony Flew followed the evidence and it led him (an avid atheist) to God.

The problem is that there are not many people like Mr Flew who HONESTLY follow the evidence WITHOUT a bias toward atheism. They have reached a conclusion (no God) before they even study the evidence, so even if they do find evidence they twist it to fit their atheistic worldview.

Stu: That's not entirely true, Antony Flew followed the evidence and it led him (an avid atheist) to God.

Well, Flew did realize - just like Einstein did after realizing his "steady state" universe was impossible without some divine intelligence - neither one of them embraced the personal God of Christianity. What they did was admit what is obvious about the need for a God to exist, but they also showed that their rejection of Him was due to an emotional reaction that this God could not also be Jesus. So they stopped at the non-salvational belief of an impersonal, Deist God.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/the- ... 010-44960/

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:37 am

Stu: That's not entirely true, Antony Flew followed the evidence and it led him (an avid atheist) to God.

Well, Flew did realize - just like Einstein did after realizing his "steady state" universe was impossible without some divine intelligence - neither one of them embraced the personal God of Christianity. What they did was admit what is obvious about the need for a God to exist, but they also showed that their rejection of Him was due to an emotional reaction that this God could not also be Jesus. So they stopped at the non-salvational belief of an impersonal, Deist God.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/the- ... 010-44960/

I have Flew's book but haven't read it yet, just know his story. So he didn't convert to Christianity. You sure of this?

Yes, Stu - it's really sad that he cleared that huge obstacle of realizing the universe and its functions could not exist without God, only to deny who and what He is.

I think, biggist stumbling blocks are emotional ones.

I think that receiving of the Holy Spirit would be *the* proof.

Other proofs would include (i) having your prayers answered (ii) other worldly signs, coincidences or happenings out of the ordinary (iii) other non-worldly signs or happenings e.g. Jesus, an angel or an archangel materializing in front of you.

The next question is ....Would a close-minded, highly-argumentative atheist ever get to experience any of the above ?

LittleHamster wrote: ↑Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:50 am I think that receiving of the Holy Spirit would be *the* proof.

Other proofs would include (i) having your prayers answered (ii) other worldly signs, coincidences or happenings out of the ordinary (iii) other non-worldly signs or happenings e.g. Jesus, an angel or an archangel materializing in front of you.

The next question is ....Would a close-minded, highly-argumentative atheist ever get to experience any of the above ?

Very rarely. Sometimes you get cases of pagans who do, and to some degree God answers people's needs as we all have some blessings.

1over137 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:23 am I think, biggist stumbling blocks are emotional ones.

Yes and especially preconceived emotional ( and intellectual) ones.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:10 pm I often ask what proof would be enough for the skeptic to believe in God.
The answer:
None.

I (a skeptic) have been asked that question many times and I always give an answer; but the response to my answer is usually something like “God doesn’t work that way”, "God requires faith", or "how dare you the created insist the creator play by YOUR rules!"

Kenny,
have you ever asked God:
"God. I would like to know you, please, show yourself to me in a way you work but in a way I could understand that you really are. I would like to know you and knowing you I would like to serve you, recognize you as my Lord and my Saviour."

1over137 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:02 pm Kenny,
have you ever asked God:
"God. I would like to know you, please, show yourself to me in a way you work but in a way I could understand that you really are. I would like to know you and knowing you I would like to serve you, recognize you as my Lord and my Saviour."

Yes.