Must God Prove He Exists?

People often 'guess' at things in which they are not knowledgeable (what will happen tomorrow as an example). Speculations are a favorite among the brokers at the stock exchange. Atheists who proclaim God to be this or that or the other thing are obviously "guessing" about an entity that some of them will blatantly say does not exist.... yet they put a label on that entity as though it does exist.

 

​

Incontrovertible proof of God's existence would, as suggested, leave no room for uncertainty. I suspect this would undermine the purpose of us having Free Will. As it is, we are free to believe there is an all powerful creator watching (over) us, with a plan for us to fulfill ...or not. There is likely a vast difference in how we all (believers, doubters, non-believers - everyone) would live if there was no room for doubt or questions regarding the existence of God. There would be no Faith, there would only be fact. It seems likely (to me) that both Faith and uncertainty are necessary in humanity's progress and development.

 

lol - true.

I would say that when an atheist refers to god they are not suggesting that a god exists - they are identifying the idea.

 

This may make sense in some traditions, but it doesn't seem to make sense in Christianity, which teaches that God frequently has provided direct proof of his existence to Adam, Moses, Noah, Jacob, Paul, etc.

 

And they under-estimate the power of the mind.

 

Yes, there does seem to have been a 'seachange' in God's interventions into our affairs between the Old and New Testaments. Prior to Jesus, God's relationship to us was as Lawgiver. Afterward, Forgiver.

I believe we had reached a point in our collective development that God's interference would have hindered more than helped, whereas prior to that, we needed his guidance. I liken it to a parent raising a child into adulthood. Eventually, the child has to grow up, move out, and be allowed to 'fly or fry' if they are to ever reach their true potential.

 

If an Atheist should say "God is a murderer" they are indeed admiting the existence of God is whatever adjective they desire to use..... Check out the definitions of the terms "is" and "be".

 

Incorp - how have you been. Long time no see. Has anything exciting happened to you in the interim ? ... like engaging with an exit counselor perhaps ?

 

Of course not, he must only prove he exists for us to believe in him.

 

If I say “Harry Potter is a wizard” that doesn’t mean I’m suggesting Harry Potter is a real individual, I’m only describing characteristics attributed to the character in a book.

 

There is no faith in that and there is no salvation without faith.

 

Well, since there still isn't even a speck of credible or compelling evidence to suggest that the thing exists, it certainly wouldn't hurt its street cred if it could perform some modern-day miracle.

Say, bringing Johnny McCain back to life so he can continue ripping the moron in the White House.

Would definitely convert me



Blind faith is for SUCKERS...

 

I find it interesting this concept of “salvation”. We know that Christians feel that the only road to salvation is through the teaching of Christ. And since Christ’s entire ministry covered about .01% of the world’s geography when he preached and it took over 1500 years after his death to start translating the Bible and printing any kind of mass production of the Bible - you have to wonder what happened to the hundreds of million of people who lived and died without the slightest knowledge of said “Word”?

As I said, a middle-aged English woman had her book printed in every language and sent to every country in about two months. Got to figure an omnipotent God who wants his words lived by might have stepped up production a bit.

 

yo

you are going down a long and infinite rabbit hole with that poster...........just fyi.

 

Now my goodness... Rationalizing... making excuses for ones behavior. Denying the reality of the definitions of the terms "is" and "be". Why then are you using the term "is"? Are you also denying that Harry Potter exists as is implied in the definition of the term "is" and its corresponding indicative term "be"? Are you attempting to mutilate all the rules of grammar as it is applied to the English language?

 

No, I am pointing out that it is perfectly possible to talk about the characteristics of fictional characters without implying they must exist in reality.

 

What is the meaning of the term "is"? what is the meaning of the term "be"?

In your own words.

 

That's fine, belief should be offered in return for justification for belief, not unsubstantiated promises.

When you get contacted by a Nigerian prince who just wants access to your bank details, the problem isn't the niceness of the reward, it's the justification for belief.

 

Hebrews 11 defines 'faith' as a substance, but it is not a substance with which our scientific community is acquainted with when taken into the context of that scripture. That same chapter goes on to say " Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear"

 

Do you know about all of those miracles that the Israelites supposedly saw first-hand in the Bible? They were not impressed and certainly had no faith that Moses's imaginary deity was real. So he killed a lot of the doubters to force the remainder to express faith in his delusion.

 

Can't really say that I KNOW all about those miracles... I was not there to witness them and therefore all I have is the authors representations of what happened. Were you there to see whether or not they were impressed? Didn't think so... therefore your comments on that subject are irrelevant.

 

She looks more like Lady Gaga to me.

 

Where can I find info on said witnessing?

 

They're tense forms of the same word meaning having a particular characteristic or quality.

My questions now; Is Harry Potter a wizard? Does this statement mean that Harry Potter must exists as a real human being (not just a concept, not in the person of an actor playing him)?

 

Quoting the primary definition from one of my favorite dictionaries for the term "is" we read this: "
is
(ɪz)
vb
(used with: he, she, it, and with singular nouns) a form of the present tense (indicative mood) of be" www.tfd.com/is

and the definition of "be" is: "v. intr. 1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality:" (taken from the same dictionary).

Your present question is irrelevant in regard to your original statement ... "Harry Potter is a wizard." Such a statement is a declarative statement, NOT a question. If you have any question or doubt regarding my interpretation of the usage of the words "is" or "be", then please consult a local professor of English grammar.

In direct response to your present first "question".... Which Harry Potter are you referencing: there may well be thousands of them to choose from. As to your second question: Again, which Harry Potter are you referencing? It becomes obvious due to your parenthetical notation that you are not referencing the Actor who plays on the television/movie screen.