PDA

View Full Version : evidence for God not enough....



ilovemetal
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:00 PM
well, i ran into this the other day. after saying that there's more evidence for God than for not, he said "that still doesn't mean anything, just because we have evidence doesn't prove it." which makes sence i guess. then i said the evidence you require doesn't exist, in so many words....

also, after i said God was eternal he said "he couldn't be, nothing can be."
so i had nothing.

yup.:B:B

HisLeast
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:15 PM
also, after i said God was eternal he said "he couldn't be, nothing can be."


And he knows this how?

BrckBrln
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:18 PM
How does he think the universe came into being?

ilovemetal
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:47 PM
yes. good questions. had i thought of them at the time i could answer.

and this is why i'm the worst apologist ever.

zombieCat
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:05 AM
Don't be too hard on yourself--most of us, if we had to come up with answers to these off the tops of our heads, would flounder as well. That's why it's important to really dig into your beliefs and know not only what you believe, but why you believe it.

If your friend believes that nothing is eternal, he has a huge problem. There are only 4 possibilities for the universe that I know of (maybe someone can come up with another):


It has always existed. The second law of thermodynamics militates against this, because the universe would have essentially died of heat loss (an extreme oversimplification) an eternity ago.
The universe sprang into existence from nothing. Here you're defying the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely pass from one form to another. It is logically impossible that "nothing" can beget "something".
The universe is an illusion and doesn't really exist (apparently there are actually people who hold this belief).
The universe was created. If this is the case, either its creator has to be eternal, or the creator has to have a creator who is eternal, or THAT creator has a creator....ad infinitum. Working backwards, you eventually have to have something that is eternal and outside the bounds of physics. This in no way contradicts logic.

HisLeast
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:46 AM
ilovemetal,

Precious few people are argued into the kingdom of heaven. When you debate these things with people, at best you're giving them something to think about. But (at least in my experience), nobody seriously considers Christ until their life needs a big dose of Him.

ilovemetal
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:48 AM
Don't be too hard on yourself--most of us, if we had to come up with answers to these off the tops of our heads, would flounder as well. That's why it's important to really dig into your beliefs and know not only what you believe, but why you believe it.

If your friend believes that nothing is eternal, he has a huge problem. There are only 4 possibilities for the universe that I know of (maybe someone can come up with another):


It has always existed. The second law of thermodynamics militates against this, because the universe would have essentially died of heat loss (an extreme oversimplification) an eternity ago.
The universe sprang into existence from nothing. Here you're defying the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely pass from one form to another. It is logically impossible that "nothing" can beget "something".
The universe is an illusion and doesn't really exist (apparently there are actually people who hold this belief).
The universe was created. If this is the case, either its creator has to be eternal, or the creator has to have a creator who is eternal, or THAT creator has a creator....ad infinitum. Working backwards, you eventually have to have something that is eternal and outside the bounds of physics. This in no way contradicts logic.


yes. totally good. thanks. yeah i've been reading apologetics for months. like big time, but my problem is i can't remeber things...so.....

these are good points. i also have one to add.

*the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. an infinite number of days has no end.
2. but today is the end day of history (history being a collection of all days.)
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today (i.e., time had a beginning)


*from page 91- "i don't have enough faith to be an athiest" by Geisler and Turek

man, if only i was smart. oh well.:B:giveup:

Sold Out
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:47 AM
well, i ran into this the other day. after saying that there's more evidence for God than for not, he said "that still doesn't mean anything, just because we have evidence doesn't prove it." which makes sence i guess. then i said the evidence you require doesn't exist, in so many words....

also, after i said God was eternal he said "he couldn't be, nothing can be."
so i had nothing.

yup.:B:B

He cannot make such an absolute statement, unless he possesses all knowledge of the universe. That should stump him.

For example (some may have heard this before)....here is an absolute statement: 'There is no gold in China.' Now for me to make this statement, I would have to have 100% knowledge of China - every square inch of land, all people, their possessions, etc. Now if I were to say, 'There is gold in China.'....I would NOT have to have 100% knowledge of China. I would only need to know that gold exists somewhere in China, such as a jewelry store.

The burden of proof lies with your friend. We already have enough proof that God exists.

ilovemetal
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:50 AM
ilovemetal,

Precious few people are argued into the kingdom of heaven. When you debate these things with people, at best you're giving them something to think about. But (at least in my experience), nobody seriously considers Christ until their life needs a big dose of Him.

yeah. sadly i don't think it will happen. i do pray for him. maybe one day though he'll see how nothing brings him happiness. makes my heart break for these people.

ilovemetal
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:51 AM
He cannot make such an absolute statement, unless he possesses all knowledge of the universe. That should stump him.

For example (some may have heard this before)....here is an absolute statement: 'There is no gold in China.' Now for me to make this statement, I would have to have 100% knowledge of China - every square inch of land, all people, their possessions, etc. Now if I were to say, 'There is gold in China.'....I would NOT have to have 100% knowledge of China. I would only need to know that gold exists somewhere in China, such as a jewelry store.

The burden of proof lies with your friend. We already have enough proof that God exists.

that's a goodie. yeah i've listened to some talks on realitivism and contradicting statments. arg. anyways....

lendtay
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:15 AM
well, i ran into this the other day. after saying that there's more evidence for God than for not, he said "that still doesn't mean anything, just because we have evidence doesn't prove it." which makes sence i guess. then i said the evidence you require doesn't exist, in so many words....

also, after i said God was eternal he said "he couldn't be, nothing can be."
so i had nothing.

yup.:B:B

I think with some people, even if God personally appeared to them, they still would not believe in His existence.

HisLeast
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:29 AM
yeah. sadly i don't think it will happen. i do pray for him. maybe one day though he'll see how nothing brings him happiness. makes my heart break for these people.

Well man, just keep on keepin' on. Pay attention to your walk, in good times and in bad. Some day, your friend may fall on hard times. When he does, he may think about your approach to life and what makes you so different. Its in these times that people's hearts are most open. When they have full bellies, warm houses, and all the leisure time in the world to discount the possibility of God... not so much.

ilovemetal
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:24 AM
I think with some people, even if God personally appeared to them, they still would not believe in His existence.

yup.



Well man, just keep on keepin' on. Pay attention to your walk, in good times and in bad. Some day, your friend may fall on hard times. When he does, he may think about your approach to life and what makes you so different. Its in these times that people's hearts are most open. When they have full bellies, warm houses, and all the leisure time in the world to discount the possibility of God... not so much.

yeah. i try to keep on my toes. i generally have a good attitude towards life too, which helps. unless i'm mad. then i'm brutal.

apothanein kerdos
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:32 AM
well, i ran into this the other day. after saying that there's more evidence for God than for not, he said "that still doesn't mean anything, just because we have evidence doesn't prove it." which makes sence i guess. then i said the evidence you require doesn't exist, in so many words....

also, after i said God was eternal he said "he couldn't be, nothing can be."
so i had nothing.

yup.:B:B

It's true that evidence never "proves" anything in a 100% sense. In fact, nothing in this world can be proven 100% (not even that statement or this qualifier to that statement). It could very well be that I'm a figment of your imagination that's saying "nothing can be proven 100%." Now all the evidence points against this being the case, but it can't be proven 100%.

When we speak of "proof of God" we are merely speaking of the evidence. The evidence gives justification for believing in God - in fact, one can even have belief in God without evidence (via warrant - see Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Beliefs).

As for "nothing can be eternal" - the flip-side to this is nothing can be infinitely regressive then. If x is infinitely regressive then it is eternal by default. Therefore, there has to be an absolute beginning to everything. This would mean that at one point there was nothing. We must then explain how something came from nothing (which logically cannot happen, it's a fallacy). The only way to explain that there is something here now is to accept that somewhere down the line there was another something that caused this something. That "another something" would have to be eternal, or at least outside of time.

ServantoftheKing
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:52 AM
yes. totally good. thanks. yeah i've been reading apologetics for months. like big time, but my problem is i can't remeber things...so.....

these are good points. i also have one to add.

*the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1. an infinite number of days has no end.
2. but today is the end day of history (history being a collection of all days.)
3. Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today (i.e., time had a beginning)


*from page 91- "i don't have enough faith to be an athiest" by Geisler and Turek

man, if only i was smart. oh well.:B:giveup:

I would suggest learning everything you can about evidence for the resurrection. There is a very good reason that all of what we believe as Christians hinges on the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14). There is too much evidence for the physical resurrection of Christ to be ignored. A good book to read as a start would be More Than A Carpenter, by Josh McDowell. It is a quick read, but to the point.

ServantoftheKing

ilovemetal
Sep 23rd 2008, 05:58 AM
I would suggest learning everything you can about evidence for the resurrection. There is a very good reason that all of what we believe as Christians hinges on the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14). There is too much evidence for the physical resurrection of Christ to be ignored. A good book to read as a start would be More Than A Carpenter, by Josh McDowell. It is a quick read, but to the point.

ServantoftheKing

yeah. i will get that one day soon.

i want morlands 700 page one he just put out. yikes! it's a biggie!

petepet
Sep 23rd 2008, 11:18 AM
well, i ran into this the other day. after saying that there's more evidence for God than for not, he said "that still doesn't mean anything, just because we have evidence doesn't prove it." which makes sence i guess. then i said the evidence you require doesn't exist, in so many words....

also, after i said God was eternal he said "he couldn't be, nothing can be."
so i had nothing.

yup.:B:B


As has been well said above, we cannot prove anything 100% (except possibly that 'perceptions' exist'). Everything that we claim to 'know' is actually an interpretation of evidence.

One approach not yet mentioned is for him to consider the teaching of Jesus Christ as found, for example, in Matthew 5-7.

Here was a unique moral teaching far above that of any other moral teacher. It is far superior in its entirety to any other moral teaching, even that of Moses, Buddha and Confucius. (That is acknowledged by men of all religions, and of none). And it only came into existence when Jesus Christ spoke it. There is nothing similar either before or since (only imitations).

But the same person Who brought these unique ethical teachings into the world, revealing His uniqueness and gigantic stature, imbedded within them the hugest of claims. In Matthew 7.23 He claimed that men's eternal destinies woul be determined by His word. And He did it so gently that we almost do not notice it.

Now it will be apparent to any honest person that whoever spoke the words in Matthew 5-7 is a giant among men. But would such a man have made the statement in Matthew 7.23 unless it was true? Accept that and you are well on your way to believing in God.

So we are faced with the question of Jesus Christ. How can He be explained other than

PaleoJoe
Sep 30th 2008, 05:03 AM
well, i ran into this the other day. after saying that there's more evidence for God than for not, he said "that still doesn't mean anything, just because we have evidence doesn't prove it." which makes sence i guess. then i said the evidence you require doesn't exist, in so many words....

also, after i said God was eternal he said "he couldn't be, nothing can be."
so i had nothing.

yup.:B:B

ilovemetal,

Let me start by saying that I answer questions for people having questions of a scientific bend (Science Apologetics). Here's one that a lot of people, Christians included, have a misconception of - the Big Bang theory points to God. This all started with Einstein's theory of General Relativity. As he began to understand it's implication, Einstein had to make an adjustment to his theory. Einstein believed in a steady-state Universe which had no beginning and will have no end. His problem was that his theory of General Relativity meant that the Universe had a beginning. To make it fit with his belief in an eternal Universe, he came up with the cosmological constant. Another scientist, Hubble, later confirmed Einstein's theory of General Relativity, but threw out the cosmological constant. This led to the Big Bang theory for the origin of the Universe. What does that have to do with God? The Big Bang theory postulates that all space, energy, time, and matter was created at a point in time. For this to be true, then something outside of space, energy, matter, and time had to be the cause - the only answer is God, because he is transcendent (not bound by space, energy, matter, or time)

Lordistruth
Oct 2nd 2008, 11:46 PM
When we speak of "proof of God" we are merely speaking of the evidence. The evidence gives justification for believing in God - in fact, one can even have belief in God without evidence
Could the same be argued for evolution. If it's ok for people to believe in God without evidence, can not one believe that the theory of evolution is correct when presented with the evidence?

jponb
Oct 9th 2008, 12:23 AM
Ask him this question, " Which came first the chicken or the egg.?" Everything must reproduce after its own kind. There has to be a beginning somewhere. Once you get him to confess that there has to be a beginning, he has to realize that there has to be a God. The next challenge is to prove that you got the right one. First establish the Bible as an authority of Truth by utilizing some of the prophesies that has come to past and its accuracy as it relates to geography and history. Once you get that established, it's on.

Dani H
Oct 9th 2008, 04:10 AM
1 Corinthians 1

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written:

“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 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.
22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

People cannot find God through their intelligence. They have to be drawn by the Holy Spirit.

Meaning that you can make so many logical arguments, but unless you call God Himself onto the scene, their minds will remain blind by the god of this world. You can either spin your wheels and try to prove to someone that God exists, or you can preach Christ, and Him crucified, and let God convict them of the truth of it.

BrckBrln
Oct 9th 2008, 04:21 AM
You can either spin your wheels and try to prove to someone that God exists, or you can preach Christ, and Him crucified, and let God convict them of the truth of it.

I don't think it's a either/or situation. You can do both.

Dani H
Oct 9th 2008, 04:45 AM
I don't think it's a either/or situation. You can do both.

You're right.

I was just thinking if the OP was simply trying to prove God's existence to someone without bringing Jesus into it, what would be the point?

If Christ is the power of God (and we know that He is), you're going to at some point in the game have to bring Him in ...

BrckBrln
Oct 9th 2008, 05:12 AM
You're right.

I was just thinking if the OP was simply trying to prove God's existence to someone without bringing Jesus into it, what would be the point?

If Christ is the power of God (and we know that He is), you're going to at some point in the game have to bring Him in ...

Completely agreed.

Marc B
Mar 28th 2018, 02:19 PM
I know it's an old thread but my answer to anyone who disputes God's eternal state is not that hard to explain.
God's domain is outside the physical universe where time and matter exist. Time does not exist in God's domain.
That's why He can declare the end from the beginning. That's why He can say a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.
If you were on the outside of the physical realm you wouldn't be bound by it's physical laws either.
So next time someone says who created God, tell them all creation requires a beginning and a creator. The above explanation stands.
If they still refuse to see outside the physical they will never see God nor His attributes and you are just wasting your time.

Saved7
Mar 31st 2018, 03:46 AM
yes. good questions. had i thought of them at the time i could answer.

and this is why i'm the worst apologist ever.
Stop trying to be an apologist and just start talking about the Jesus you know.
Most people who look for proof really aren't interested in proof that God is real, they want proof that He is a fairy tale so they can go on rejecting what they know in their hearts to be true.

Benji
Apr 11th 2018, 04:28 PM
One must keep in mind that the god of this world has billions of people blinded to the truth. God has only chosen a very few of us to be blessed with forgiveness of sins and eternal life, while the rest will not be forgiven but instead will be judged for their sins and sent to hell. I would pray for him but don't argue with him. Imagine attempting to describe a red sunset to someone who has been blind from birth. It would be impossible.

bluesky22
Apr 11th 2018, 05:05 PM
One must keep in mind that the god of this world has billions of people blinded to the truth. God has only chosen a very few of us to be blessed with forgiveness of sins and eternal life, while the rest will not be forgiven but instead will be judged for their sins and sent to hell. I would pray for him but don't argue with him. Imagine attempting to describe a red sunset to someone who has been blind from birth. It would be impossible.


Benji, could you pm me somehow, I think you have it turned off. I need to ask you something. :)

Frances
Jul 5th 2018, 08:02 AM
and this is why i'm the worst apologist ever.

I suggest that very few people were ever argued into the Kingdom. However, many have come to Jesus because of personal testimony. Eg "once I was blind, now I see" so it may be helpful to be able to give your testimony - life before Christ, realisation, coming to Christ, and life since - in less than 4 minutes. If interested in any point hearers will ask, but longer than 4 minutes are very likely to turn off. Then in discussion any relevant part of that testimony can be given.

TrustGzus
Jul 5th 2018, 12:45 PM
There is nothing wrong with apologetics. Actually, the Bible commands it. So avoiding apologetics is sin. Doesn’t mean everyone has to be an expert. Few can be that but we should seek to give answers.

No one that I know who is a Christian became one because it seemed like the irrational, unreasonable and illogical thing to do.

Myname
Nov 5th 2018, 04:29 AM
Ask for help from the Holy Spirit relying on yourself completely isn’t gonna work as good as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. I remember times where me myself would have just fell flat on my face not knowing what to say but the Holy Spirit helped me.
Mark 13:11
And when they may lead you, delivering up, be not anxious beforehand what ye may speak, nor premeditate, but whatever may be given to you in that hour, that speak ye, for it is not ye who are speaking, but the Holy Spirit.