Do you believe God's existence can be proven 100%?
I believe in God, but I have my doubts about Him. For one, I believe His existence can't be proven 100%, and apparently that makes me agnostic...
I believe in God, but I have my doubts about Him. For one, I believe His existence can't be proven 100%, and apparently that makes me agnostic...
Comments
"Proof" it turns out is a pretty subjective thing. What consitutes proof for one person, may not be proof at all to another.
So very few things in life can be 'proven'
For instance.. after 17 years of marriage, I still can not PROVE that my wife has not secretly had an affair which she has perfectly covered up. I have strong compelling reasons that she has NOT, reasons that I'm sure most anyone would agree with and the LACK of evidence that she has had an affair leads me to believe she has not. But I can not PROVE it -- 100%
I can't even prove that all the cars will stop at the stop light next time I'm driving.
I can't even prove that everyone else exists, besides myself, and I'm not simply hallucinating or in some sorta 'matrix' where thoughts are being fed to me to BELIEVE that the world exists.
____________
Secondly..
Who says that everything must be 100% to be believed? We can have compelling reasons to believe in something even if we can't prove it.
So long as we have evidence and 'good reason' to believe in something - then we can still be rational.
______________
Thirdly..
Not all evidence is physical. There are reasons and evidence that are based on deductive reasoning and conclusions drawn from the premises.
So not all evidence is empirical or scientific in nature.
______________
Check out http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/ and ReasonableFaith.org
But I'll leave you with 1 Philosophical proof for the existence of God.
Kalam variant of the Cosmological Argument
1) Things which have a beginning, have a cause
2) The Universe had a beginning
3) Therefore the Universe had a cause
We can then expand on this -- deductively..
- Something can not be its own cause. We are also not looking for an infinite regression of causes, so we are looking for the FINAL or PRIMARY causation.
- The cause of the Universe (mutiverse) must be transcendent and metaphysical, as it can not be physical or it would require a cause. It can also not be contingent, as it would then require a cause.
- The only two things which are metaphysical, transcendent, and believed to be non-contingent by Philosophers are either: Abstract objects OR a metaphysical mind (having no parts)
- We know that abstract objects such as numbers can't "cause" anything to happen, that's the definition of being abstract. So therefore the cause must be a metaphysical mind.
- We know that this cause can't have other causes (or it wouldn't be final or primary) therefore it can't be contingent on anything else.
- If it is non-contingent then it must be eternal.
So this leaves us with only with a non-contingent, metaphysical, transcendent, eternal, mind as the cause of the Universe.
I suppose that depends on how one defines "proof".
I believe that God will make His existance an undeniable fact. As it states in Philippians "every knee should bow" and "every tongue confess".
The Bible already states that His existance has been made plain, such that all men are with out excuse (Romans 1:19).
I believe if you study the scriptures from God's perspective, most of the so-called "problems with the Bible" will simply fall out, because we're trying to understand it based on mankind's relativistic morality.
We have to remember, we're all biased because of sin, therefore take a huge grain of salt when examining critics claims, what "facts" are they leaving out, not explaining properly or half-heartedly or out-right lying about? It's there, they're blind to it, and they're not going to help you...why should they? (Isaiah 53:6)
There are, however, a few glimmers of hope in works such as "A shot of faith to the head", by Mitch Stokes who covers some deep philosophical concepts along these lines. Google Chuck Missler's videos, he believes you CAN prove the Bible accurate by looking at a combination of fulfilled Bible prophecies, proofs of Christ's existance, etc., thus proving God's existence, by default.
There are some online Youtube channels that have some good content as well: checkout "OnceForgivenNowFree", "TruthIsLife7", "WretchedNetwork", "Ravi Zacharias International Ministries" and "Koinonia House" where you can look up alot of those Chuck Missler videos.
You are Deist/Agnostic if you believe in 'God', but still hold the view that it can neither be proven nor dis-proven.
Agnostic is not a fence-sitting, bet-hedging, or 'weak atheist' position - it is simply the (intellectually honest) belief that in an infinite (for all means and purposes) universe, and based on our limited knowledge about that universe, it is impossible to categorically 'prove' or 'dis-prove' the existence of any kind of deity or higher power.
Now, without any evidence to support (or a compelling reason to infer) the existence of deities, then the burden of proof falls on anyone who claims they exist. If they claim to believe based on 'faith', then more power to them - as long as they aren't hurting anyone, forcing it down anyone's throat, or attempting to insert it into legislation or high school science classrooms.
On the other hand, we have a surplus of evidence and *repeatable* testable analysis from scientific fields like biology, genetics, zoology, paleontology, geology, physics, astrophysics, etc. that explain nearly every single aspect of our universe that used to be attributed to 'god'.
Obviously none of this 'dis-proves' the existence of 'god' (even if it were possible to prove the non-existence of something in the first place). It would still be possible for 'god' to be at the 'beginning' of all of it - the only thing it precludes is a literal interpretation of biblical creation myths.
Belief in 'god' and accepting scientific facts are not mutually exclusive concepts - there are now, and have always been a huge number of people who are able to believe in both (indeed, there are many for whom their fascination with science is what cements their belief in a higher power).
Again, this is fine, as long as they steer clear of pseudo-scientific nonsense like 'young earth creationism' or 'intelligent design theory' - or expect special treatment of their hypotheses when they substitute 'god did it' for a real attempt at an explanation.
There is no way to prove it completely. but as an agnostic brought up in a Christian family my reason is there has to be some greater purpose in life, but it seems very unlikely that the exact same God is the one everybody sees. I believe that a set of morals is important to have, and I agree with some of the ones that religions have, but everyone is different, and we cant all have the same morals
I believe that the existence of God can be effectively argued philosophically. The traditional "proofs" for the existence of God (like Aquinas' five) are like that. I do not believe that there is physical evidence from nature of a supernatural being that exists outside of it and is it's creator. There are "signs" in nature... "footprints" if you will, but not actual physical evidence that could be dissected in a lab. Although, I'm quite proud of the fact that I am not a slave to "scientism"... if I were, I could not believe in the legitimacy of justice and human rights either.
No. Even as a Christian I was told by other Christians that there is no way to prove that he exists. Just like how people also believe in Big Foot, Santa Claus, Faeries, Satan or any other deity there has yet to be an actual appearance of these figures that we can see for ourselves.
For that you need to read Bhagvat Gita. Coz Krishna gives the wisdom in the Bhagvat Gita and if you want the credits become a genuine reader.
Chant Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare with belief
The supreme Lord Krishna will guide you through your heart
Remember it is the only way no other way
A world in which ANY god intervenes in would be markedly different to one in which one does not.
God(s) are not immune to science and "the god hypothesis" is testable in theory if not in practice.
We're ALL agnostic, basically. It's just that believers don't know but trust there's a god, and atheists don't know but trust the evidence.
I believe in a first century Jewish man.
We have his words - so obviously he existed.
I'd love to sit down over coffee with you and tell you why I believe his words; and after that discuss his birth, death and miracles... then and only then work out in concentric circles to other spiritual concepts.
Critical examination of the evidence (THAT SPLIT HISTORY INTO TWO)
is vital.
You choose instead to launch yourself into oblivion based on what, exactly? Fuzzy feelings in your tummy?
DO THE WORK.
I can't sit down for coffee with you.
It's up to you.
It's life and death.
YOUR OWN.
(PS. God can raise children for Abraham from the rocks if he wants to. He doesn't need you or anyone else. If you're not interested, he'll still use you to fulfill his purposes - and you'll be none the wiser.)
Though any and all gods have not been and cannot be proven false, there is abundant evidence showing that the God of Abraham (Bible) is a myth. If god is some sort of a deist god, that will (probably) can never be proven or disproven, but the science is suggesting that WE are god(s).