What is the best evidence for the existence of God?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9xpqDdJ9k8Y
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I'd say the empty tomb is pretty good.

Hmmm. What is more likely:

1. A trick
2. God

Seems like a stretch.

Many different scholars wrote about Jesus. Don't be retarded.

Who did this "trick"?

The tomb was sealed and guarded by Roman soldiers.

Trinity digits prove Jesus.

There isn't any evidence for the existence of god.

>Many different scholars wrote about Jesus
Yes. But is Jesus really God? How did the scholars show this?

>Who did this "trick"?
I don't know, that's how they work, there is a hidden detail that makes a performance seem supernatural.

Think of the most elaborate and unlikely explaination, it would still be less miraculous than 'it was God'.

On what basis can I believe this?

Ancient sandniggers said so, it must be true.

It's all around you.
>nothing exploded and became everything
Keep smoking that dope, Pajeet.

the banana

seriously, think about it
it fits right in your hand

how is that possible?

that's right
GOD motherfucker
you know it, deep down

>best evidence
>implying there's any evidence

>What is the best evidence for the existence of God?
It's personal.

There were historians in the region at the time and NONE mentioned a god damn thing. Jesus wasn't mention in text until about 70 years afterwards. That would be like me writing a story about someone I never met in the 1950s and you would say it was accurate.

>the creation museum education system everyone.
>ancient sand nigger comic books are super accurate user, y dont you believe me?

>>nothing exploded and became everything
The early universe is unknown.

>therefore God

your existence

>>Many different scholars wrote about Jesus
You are letting him get away with this? There are no scholarly sources. The actual scholars in the same areas at the same time that jesus allegedly existed don't mention him once. At least request a source for his retarded claims.

p1: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence (PSR, ex nihilo nihil fit)
p2: the universe began to exist (incoherence of an infinite regression of events, impossibility of an actual infinite)
c1: therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

p3: the cause is either impersonal or personal (law of excluded middle)
p4: the cause of the universe is not impersonal (impersonal causes cannot alone elect to change one state of affairs to a different state of affairs)
c2: therefore, the cause of the universe is personal

characteristics of the cause:
• personal (c2)
• timeless (existed causally 'before' time)
• spaceless (existed causally 'before' space)
• unimaginably powerful (created the entire universe)

Science at some point becomes a matter of believing too.
Im not christian or anything btw

Depends on what you mean by God. If by God you mean existence itself and the natural order governing all that exists, then God obviously exists. If you start attributing other qualities to this God, then it becomes questionable.

replace universe with god, and you end up with the same problem. Don't assume we are as retarded as you were when you visited the creation museum.

yes

>evidence
>existence of God
Pick one.

lol idk nigga some paranormal shit was probably going down that was big enough to cause the romans to shit themselves over one sky hippie.

you know """logic""" isnt a reflection of reality right? Have you ever sought education outside a church or a creation museum?

He was seen after his death by over 5000 people

>It was a trick
Okay so who pulled off this trick
>Uhhh... I don't know. But someone must have.

If you refuse to believe than you refuse to believe, but that's not our problem. Or God's problem.

If it was a trick there would be a dead centurion

White people

I asked you what is more likely.

Your response is 'you just refuse to believe'.

That's not right. I would believe if there was good reason to.

Something unexplained happened, and you jump on 'therefore God'. We need to get there with baby steps first.

>replace universe with god, and you end up with the same problem
what problem?
and yes, if you change the argument to something else it will change the argument to something else
>you know logic isnt a reflection of reality right?
this is what atheists actually believe

>It's all around you.
Which proves the existence of tiny robot monkey, tiny robot monkey created everything we see around us, if he didn't then we wouldn't see anything because there wouldn't be anything, the very existence of the universe proves the existence of tiny robot monkey (praise him).

How do you know? We don't know how it occurred.

Also assuming the details in the gospel are 100% accurate.

He was killed because he claimed to be God.

Complexity and beauty of human beings.

>He was killed because he claimed to be God.
That's correct. But does that me He WAS God or just the claim itself was threatening enough to have Him crucified?

These digits

if anything this more proves that there is a higher dimension but still activates those almonds though.

Nope. The universe had a beginning

The fact that reality is conscious check out the slit experiment, also the fact that the code for life is engraned in photons as life (albiet simple forms of life) will flouriah even under the most harsh conditions ie nuclear reactor rods with microscopic simple life. Also read the law of onenfor better understanding.

Regardless what anyone thinks about the existence of Christ as God, his movement shaped the world into a better one. I personally don't believe in any person with cheat codes able to play this game irl, but I am thankful for their sacrifices over the last 2,000 years.

I will always forgive a christian who meant well but did wrong.

that's an excellent jumping off point
metaphysical naturalism is a shit

Where is it? We need evidence and not eyewitness accounts.

You're looking for evidence in faith. By asking this question you don't understand the meaning of faith.

Why do things or mass exist? Why does this 3D space exist?

>we need evidence and not evidence

do you believe nero existed?

>The universe had a beginning
Therefore God? No.

>pic related

Pic related

>We need evidence and not eyewitness accounts

Why? It works well enough for the Holocaust.

you are missing some premises
----->

One of the Romans might have been a necrophiliac. I'm positive at least ten dudes I was in the Army with would hump a dead body on a dare. The Romans were probably fucking around too much and had to lose the body. Worst cover story in the world leads to Christianity. Smooth move, Lucius.

Trying to squeeze god into some cosmological theories is just wrong. Religion is completely seperate from science. Even asking for "evidence for the existence of God" shows how rational thinking is just not compatible with religion. First philosophy then science killed religion because they were asking wrong questions which religion cannot answer. If you're looking for the true meaning of religion or god, you don't look through a telescope, you study people. Or read people who study them.

So, God created all we see and yet God just miraculously appeared? Ah makes perfext sense. We had to be created and the creator just always was, but the universe couldn't have just always been! Iron clad logic, user.

whats the best evidence of an economy?

Therefore the universe =/= God. And something has to exist outside of the universe that is not bound to the laws that we are bound to.

No. How is it 'personal'? That's ridiculous.

>hear stories about people who died and experienced nothing and came back
T-there's got to be some sort of spiritual explanation for this, I don't think I can handle this blackpill.

You're supposing that God is within time. God is. God is eternal, outside creation, before, after, yet everywhere within it. He simply, is.

Maybe. Maybe not. We do not know how the early universe formed. Maybe is it cyclic, maybe it was caused by the membrane of the universe colliding with another. Maybe the big bang is a reverse black hole of kinds.

But that force had no creator?

>how is it 'personal'?
this is the only way which to explain how you have the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning (universe) with a cause which exists timelessly and eternally.
if the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without its effect.
if the cause were timelessly present, then its effect would be timelessly present as well.
the only way for the cause to be timeless and for the effect to begin to exist in time is for the cause to be a personal agent, who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions.
and thus we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator, God.

Humans re fucking not suited for life on this earth.
Everything kills us from some fucking bacteria, a snot left on the elevator button or just a bump on the head when you were sucking dicks too vigorously and hit your head on the elbow.
We are not complex, we are just too stupid to understand how we work and our beauty is the way our conciousness tells our conciousness its time to fuck.
But again, we are too stupid to understand how it works and damn, the rest of the planet is populated by things even more stupid than we are (they can kill us as well)

you

>The fact that reality is conscious check out the slit experiment
Not so fast buddy, the pattern changes in the double slit experiment not because the waves / particles are somehow 'aware' they're being observed, but because the method of observation interacts with the subject changing the outcome, it's a common misconception & one often used to peddle woo woo.

Not in and of itself no bit that was his claim so we muse ecanine it. CS Lewis has a good book on this called Lord, Liar, or Lunatic

But the natural world couldn't be? And sheep herders scrawled the answers many moons past?

The bible agrees with you on this

God? That there is anything at all, if you consider all the implications of that fact.
And the simplicity of the 'evidence' isn't to be condescending. Just that given these facts, there is no alternative explanation that doesn't devolve into absurdity.

To help you along, the argument would seem to suggest that god, as a thing, would also need "God" to explain why it exists, and the position is self defeating, but if that were the case you fall into infinite regress. So we presuppose an alpha/omega. Not necessarily the god of the Bible. Just that metaphysical construct.

Why couldn't that be the Universe? Because all accounts it is temporal, and everything within it, space itself, has a definite point of instantiation. You'll see some invocation of quantum mysticism to try and describe that away - Hawkings basically does this, but the argument is along the lines that we can't keep looking back any further (smaller discrete units of time) so we don't KNOW the exact moment of instantiation, and given the scales we're talking about in this case, quantum physics applies.

The simply response is that one second prior to this there was nothing, in the same way we could sub-divide time when a car begins to move, and never arrive at the exact point when the car begins moving, but if rather than subdividing, we look back in definite units there is CLEARLY a point at which a state decisively change.

The OTHER point is that if we're going to assume a quantum state, then the circumstance the metaphysical naturalist is trying to describe has the answer written on the tin - they need an observer to collapse the quantum state into one of definite properties (the Universe).

And..... Who's to say there is but one?

For me it would be big bang, what was before it and why it happened. And whether there actually was a big bang like scientists claim.

>Why? It works well enough for the Holocaust.
Also backed up by physical evidence, documentation, film & photographic evidence, it's the most well documented genocide in history, contrary to what you nazis like to believe.

fpwp

Ontological.

That's not how it works man. It takes faith. Truly having faith takes a much stronger man than one who relies on truth. When I say truth, I'm referring to all of the things we knew to be true, until they weren't.

>wtf, im a polytheist now
whatever, that particular argument is only toward atheism

Pic related

I have to agree. Most Christians are just honest to God good people.

No, he is ever existent always was and always will be. If you are not bound by time you are not bound by causation

That the apostles were willingly tortured and crucified for their beliefs.

If you remember, during the 3 day rest, they began to doubt whether Christ was the messiah, and it wasn't until his resurrection that they were finally convinced, as is in the case of Doubting Thomas.

Given the recorded historical accounts and evidence of the apostles deaths, I find it hard to believe that they would die for something that they had absolute assurance of. (If Christ had not come back, why die for the beliefs that you know are a lie?)

>conscious check out the slit experiment

I keep seeing that garbage on Sup Forums. Where do you clowns get it? Deepak Chopra?

We don't know how it formed but we know it began to exist

the voices inside your head

>hur dur gaps in my knowledge therefore sky wizard

>there are people who can read this

To be fair monotheism was an evolved belief. In fact Judaism didn't start that way and isn't teven the oldest known. (Zoroastrianism is)

And that which begins to exist, has a cause that precedes it.

>trying to prove an assumption correct rather than trying to prove it wrong

Setting yourself up for delusion.

Try outer space. The bible says we are aliens on this planet

>Doesn't understand the big bang theory
Keep believing a book written by even more primitive sand niggers

Evidence of the existence of God - Bogdanoff Brothers

youtube.com/watch?v=9xpqDdJ9k8Y

The fact that Jews run the world? The formation of Israel? The degeneration of the youth?
It almost seems delusional to not believe in Christianity or Judaism.

my post number

This fallen world is very unnatural, actually. The closest we as God's creation in His image have gotten go being in our natural state is Christ, but a full human example would be the Saints.

...

Seconded, Chopra peddles these misunderstandings for his own financial gain, and dimwits parrot it ad nauseam.

When I think of God I am necessitated to ascribe all perfections of Him; existence is perfection; thus I am necessitated to ascribe existence to God; therefore, God exists.

Yes, as long as I don't understand everything in the world well enough to deny the possibility of a god of some kind existing I will not completely deny the chance of one existing. That's why I'm agnostic instead of sperging out on internet because somebody doesn't want to say gods don't exist.

There is none. The very premise of a deity is unfalsifiable, but based on all observable evidence we have we can very easily tell that the chances of a sentient being appearing from nothing and creating us is astronomically smaller than us popping into existence by infinite probability.

The god of the old testament in particular is a literal vampire with many demonic traits and is not something anyone should actually want to worship.

I'd go as far as saying that religion was the first science. Early people made observations about the world and credited it to other-worldy phenomenon. Eating that food displeased god so that's why they were sickened by it.