Question Indisputable Proof

[The_Chameleon]

If there was a way to know for absolute certain, scientifically, logically, and in every other measure of evidence, whether or not there is a divine creator, would you want to know? Would you peek at the evidence and risk the answer being something other than what you hope or expect it to be, or would you leave that door closed? If you did peek, and the answer was in contrast to what you had believed before, how would this affect you both in the moment, and long term? How, if at all, would it change you and the way you look at the world?


... Does it make you uncomfortable to even contemplate this question?




- Chameleon

P.S. I should note that by "divine creator" I am not referring to evidence of a specific religious identity, only of there being an intelligence behind the creation of the Universe.

 

[Hilander]

Yes I would want to know. If the truth wasn't what I thought it would be I would be okay with that. Its not like its going to change anything just because in the past what I thought was different.

Its kind of like when people found out the world was round instead of flat. Nothing changed, your daily life stayed the same.

 

[Chaos]

Yes, I would choose to know because I'm generally open-minded already. I would also be curious to see how others reacted; if there was a cosmic creator-like force, but it was not the 'god' entity/entities as presented in various religions, would Christians and Muslims and so on change their beliefs? I suspect there are some who would not.

As for whether or not it would change my life, I think it would depend on various things. If my beliefs were proven true, and there was no god or afterlife or great purpose/meaning, my life would not change dramatically (if at all) because I already work on that assumption. On the other hand, if there was proof of some cosmic creator, I suppose it would depend on the additional information supplied - if the evidence also proved that a specific religion was correct, certainly I would consider that to be a change of lifestyle and would adapt accordingly.

However if there was a cosmic force that had created life but had no demands in regards to worship or acknowledgement (say, for example, it was not sentient) then my life would not change. My beliefs already allow for an event having created life/the universe (the Big Bang) so that notion would simply be replaced by whatever force or event shown to me by such proof. I don't worship the Big Bang now, so I'm not about to start just because I knew with certainty that it was the truth.

 

[dDave]

Who wouldn't take indisputable proof if it was offered?

It's one of the biggest questions people ask today. Being offered an indisputable answer would be quite something. I don't believe you can scientifically prove God, science itself rejects the idea of God simply because of the very nature of God but IF it was possible then yes, I'd take it.

I suppose you could actually draw a lot of comparisons to the Matrix from a situation like this. "Ignorance is bliss", that's an idea shown in that film.

 

[ReasontoBelieve]

Hi Cham buddy. Good post thread. Yeah if only there was something to look to find proof. I mean sure we would want the correct and right answer. Will we be effected if either we knew or believe?


Well long ago I am sure people did not know it was dangerous to use coal as a fuel. . We did not know that the sun damaged our skin for being outside directly without clothing. Yes it does makes a difference to know and what impact it will have on you. Now we try to use safer fuel options to run the train and cars. .now we know to keep our clothes on and sunglasses to not absorb ultra violet rays...so we can be effected to those things we don't know what may danger us. In likewise we can benefit on the things we have learned to take another approach.


I don't know everything. I don't know how far the moon is from the Earth. I can't build a house etc. so there are tons of things I just don't know.


I am going to answer your question, that may not satisfy many who are looking for complete scientific data that some depend on to conclude to their answers. No this is not the religion section. But God has become the subject of topic. .Therefore I will share in the aspect of proof not being accountable to any scientific organization, universities teachings, and research.


As I said my answer will be sufficient for some, but not for others. The proof is there. It is called the Bible. The first page tells us “In The Beginning God Created The Heavens and the Earth.


So do we really need to be getting telescopes and microscopes to prove if this verse is correct? Sure you could but please even with telescopes and microscopes you will not see God directly. So then one may conclude, I did not see God so let me record this. My hypothesis is.. there is no God because I did not see him in any modern technology measuring instrument.


That's not the way to prove God. The evidence is right before. We stand on it everyday. We look at it everyday. Yet it is only the Word of God in writing that tells us the solid proof whether God exists or does not.


To believe in God simply does not rely on extrapolations of Big Bang Theories, Archaeological evidence etc. It is called Faith!


Jesus said to Thomas..”Thomas touch my side. Now feel the nail mark in my hand..Thomas did. Then Jesus said see I am not a Ghost.” Jesus was real. Then Jesus said. “Thomas you believe because you have seen me. But blessed are those who believe me and have yet not seen me anyways”..


Is this fair that Jesus wants us to believe without physically seeing his face, hands, and feet? But we believe not only by faith, but including all the evidence before us. What evidence do we have? The Earth we stand on. The sun, moon, and the stars. That is full proof of God's existence. By this evidence in faith we believe in God who created all things..


Read Genesis chapter 1. In every instance it says '”Then God said”. And every time God spoke things came into existence. By faith we believe this to be true. The Bible does not present scientific experiments to prove God's existence. What the Bible does share is who is behind the creation.. The Bible also shares that God is invisible before our eyes.


If I was sitting at a university classroom and I told the teacher what I told you here he or she would probably say RTB, I am sorry. Your answer is insufficient. Because this teacher is not satisfied with the Bible and what it says. They say this is not proof. Let me grab my telescopes and microscope to prove whether God exists. .


But I need not worry and neither the other believers as well. Let the teacher try to prove God is wrong. Let them keep reading and doing research.


Friends the teacher has it all wrong. The answer, the proof is there. It is not a new scientific invention. its is not a new theory. The answer was there only and if simply with one hand open the cover to see these Words....
“In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and Earth”.


This proof is written.

 

[The_Chameleon]

What I am talking about, to clarify further, is a form of proof that would be sufficient to speak to both the hearts and minds of those with and those without faith. A rock solid piece of scientifically supportable evidence that proves the existence of some kind of conscious self-aware being a logical necessity in the creation of the universe or proves beyond a doubt that such an influence could not have possibly been involved. The proverbial Rosetta stone of universal truth.


If indeed a religious person saw proof positive that there was some kind of all-powerful god, it would only support their faith in the specific deity of their religion, but how jarring and horrific a shock would it be to find out that there could be no possible way of any type of intelligent creator being involved in the formation of our universe? Likewise, how would it be for someone who has walked away from religion, believing themselves to be free-agents to suddenly find out that there is a higher power of some kind out there that they may have to answer to one day? Would such a person be inclined to explore further the nature of such a being or prefer to live by the preconceived notions they are more comfortable with?


Indeed, I am like Morpheus asking if folks would take the blue pill or the red pill, and also wanting to know if they would want to return to the "Matrix" if it turned out the answers were not as they had hoped or imagined.



- Chameleon

 

[Chaos]

This proof is written.

If the Bible can be used as evidence, should I also assume that Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings are absolute truths? Furthermore the issue I have with the Bible is that it was written too late and has too many edited editions to have any substantial value as evidence. Humans existed for many, many thousands of years before Christianity was even a concept, let alone the Bible existing as a collection of texts; personally I am unable to consider it as 'evidence' any more than I am able to accept hieroglyphs on papyrus or doodles on cave walls. The contradictions between Old and New Testaments only further my disinclination to accept its viability.

 

[The_Chameleon]

I have a question for you RTB. If you have faith in what is "written", then considering there have been (as I understand it) many accounts predating the Bible of a proclaimed "Son of Man"/"Son of God" being nailed to a tree as a sacrifice for the sins of man, why do you believe Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, rather than those who said it before he was even born? That was "written" too. Just curious.


... Food for thought.



- Chameleon

 

[CaptainObvious]

If the Bible can be used as evidence, should I also assume that Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings are absolute truths? Furthermore the issue I have with the Bible is that it was written too late and has too many edited editions to have any substantial value as evidence. Humans existed for many, many thousands of years before Christianity was even a concept, let alone the Bible existing as a collection of texts; personally I am unable to consider it as 'evidence' any more than I am able to accept hieroglyphs on papyrus or doodles on cave walls. The contradictions between Old and New Testaments only further my disinclination to accept its viability.

The Old Testament was written many years before Christianity came into existence. And what is wrong with hieroglyphs on papyrus or doodles on cave walls? Are those things depicted automatically thought up as fiction? If a drawing on a cave wall shows a man hunting a lion with a spear, we can't take that as evidence they hunted lions with a spear because it's a drawing on a cave wall? At the same time, we can't take the historical accounts of the Jewish people written in the Old Testament because it's in the Bible? Even if it references the building of Salomon's Temple we can't, even if there is evidence said Temple existed, simply because it's in the Bible?

 

[ReasontoBelieve]

Hi cham...Can you please rephrase your question so I can understand it better?

Now to chaos the good thing about the Bible that it being among a book telling us how to live. It also shows many historical accounts. There are a number of archeologists that have used the Bible to recover cities and civilizations. In fact I once had a history class in high school...the teacher said some of the most ancient civilizations like the Samarians lived by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. They were recorded even earlier then the Egyptians.

Now when you read the Bible the Garden of Eden is in the east even the city of Nod. Its locations is described somewhere about the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. That agrees with the history I learned in high school. Then we started to learn in high school about ancient Egypt. The history of the Bible agrees so that when you go into the second book which is Exodus they are in Egypt. Most scholars would agree that most life had started on the continent of Africa. The Bible teaches just the same.What other ancient civilaizations are mentioned? Well I don't remember all of them just a few. There are the Assyrians, Caaninites, Moabites, Jebusites, Hitites, Babylonians, Persians,Greeks and the Romans. If that is not history enough then outside of this I don't know what is considered history.

But please remember the Bible doesn't depend on just history alone. God is teaching us to understand and know who he is. He has a plan for our lifes and is teaching us daily.