• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If you could prove God, would you?

Maybe, but I doubt it would matter. People will believe what they want to believe, and they only ask for proof to justify it. The Bible says that the Jews wandered the wilderness and had proof of God's existence seeing fire come down from heaven, manna fall from the sky, and literally hearing God's voice- and still lived in disbelief. Many people need a personal God who is interested in their life or maybe they need a God who will justify their hatred for others. Perhaps they need God to give them direction in their lives because they have none. One thing is for certain, imo..People choose their God based on culture, family, and personal needs. God is filling a need in their life. Therefore, whatever proof is provided will be ignored or molded into whatever fits their own agendas.
 
rhinefire said:
Good question. If I could prove the existence of a god I would only throw it to the world if I knew it would not offend any of the way too many religions we have created which would be tough. The God would have to be more distant than all religions bark about so as to not suggest partiality. I would definitely do it if this God told me, "reveal me and I shall shut their damn mouths about me".
Click to expand...

If a non-believer happens to have something that will prove God.....you don't think he'll use it? Think of all the books he can write....all the talk shows....the nobel prize....all the accolades....and to be known as the one who proved God.

What kind of non-believer (that is, if he's still a non-believer at that point :lamo) would even say, I'll reveal you IF.....:lol:

If you can prove God, then you know He's real. And you know where that proof to prove Him came from.
If you know He's real and you still are un-believing....well I don't know what to say. Why him, Lord? :lol:

I think determining whose God is He only comes secondary .....that is, if you manage to survive the encounter, what with you spouting off bargaining conditions like as if you'd have a choice or any say in it.

Reminds me of a Godzilla movie or something like that - the man was in the path of this behemoth and he tries to bargain away. Splaaaaat. The end. :lol:

Chances are, you'd have fainted away, or you're on your knees! Some of you don't have any concept of God.
 
Last edited:
stonewall50 said:
This is scientifically unarguable proof. Obviously hypothetical. Would you? My answer? No.
Click to expand...

Of course! I would then found the Church of the Provable God and live happily ever after.
 
The Conversion Story of C. S. Lewis


"You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me.

In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England" (Surprised By Joy, ch. 14, p. 266).
Click to expand...
The Conversion Story of C. S. Lewis


If He wills it.....there's nothing you can do about it.
If He wants you to be the one to prove Him....you will prove Him. There'll be no if or but about it.
 
Last edited:
I know this question baffles many. Why would you not prove God if you could? Others only desire to mock the notion of God. To each I say...without Faith...what is the point of...anything?
 
I'm wondering why the Vatican hasn't done this yet.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Who needs faith if Gods were proven to exist?
Click to expand...

People missuse the term faith all the time, faith as it's generally used in the bible, has nothing to do With believing God exists, Gods exsitanse was generally assumed, faith is the same as Fidelity, i.e. trusting someone and sticking to a covenant With that person.

So even if we were 100% sure God existed we'd still need faith if we were to serve him.
 
Risky Thicket said:
What is your definition of God? What religion is God?

Whatever "God" is and isn't has no doubt been proven long ago. The proof is obvious and simple. Mankind has chumped itself into searching in the wrong way, in the wrong places. "God" isn't hiding. Mankind has hidden "God". Men and women have hidden "God" behind tall tales, lies, madness, greed, hatred, arrogance, fear and ignorance.

God is love. That's it! Love exists. The existence and the power of love has stood the test of time. It's been scientifically proved.

Love is not Mennonite or Jewish or Druid or Evangelical or Atheist or Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist or Mormon or Taoist or Hindu or Wiccan or any specific religion or non-religion. Love is all of those and more. Pure love is the same for everyone. God is love.
Click to expand...

If God is just litearlly "love," then "God" is meaningless, it's not a person, it's a feeling, which is literally on the same Level as .... well ... horniness, boredum, happiness, laughter .... I love Apples, I love Girls and so on .... It's not something anyone should worship, it's not something anyone would pay attention to, since it's just a feeling.

God is love is a biblican concept about the base nature of a spirit PERSON .... If God is not a personal God, or in some way transcendant, then there is no point in using the Word "God" at all.
 
RGacky3 said:
If God is just litearlly "love," then "God" is meaningless, it's not a person, it's a feeling, which is literally on the same Level as .... well ... horniness, boredum, happiness, laughter .... I love Apples, I love Girls and so on .... It's not something anyone should worship, it's not something anyone would pay attention to, since it's just a feeling.

God is love is a biblican concept about the base nature of a spirit PERSON .... If God is not a personal God, or in some way transcendant, then there is no point in using the Word "God" at all.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't use the word "God" unless I'm talking to Christians. I don't mind using it, but I find the concept limiting. To be honest, "God" can't be conceptualized. "God" is ALL. There is nothing but "God" and even ALL is a comparison. Something would have to exist outside of "God" or beyond "God" to which it would be compared. If that were the case "God" would be limited. Love transcends everything. Love is all. "God" is love.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Actually, I don't use the word "God" unless I'm talking to Christians. I don't mind using it, but I find the concept limiting. To be honest, "God" can't be conceptualized. "God" is ALL. There is nothing but "God" and even ALL is a comparison. Something would have to exist outside of "God" or beyond "God" to which it would be compared. If that were the case "God" would be limited. Love transcends everything. Love is all. "God" is love.
Click to expand...

If God is all, then God is nothing, it's a Word that is meaningless, it doesn't deserve any attention at all .... also ALL is not love ... a rock =/= love .... Love is an emotion, and ****, emotions didn't exist before sentient beings existed, nor does love exist anywhere where sentient beings exist, so love doesn't exist in almost all the universe so obviously not God is not All if God is love, if love is all then rape is love, murder is love, but no, those are not love. Love doesn't transcent everything, when you die Your love dies as well (ecclesiastes 9:5,6) love is an emotion that comes from sentient beings, it's derivative, not transcendant.

God being unlimited doesn't mean God being equated With everything.

Also if God is all, then God can be conceptualized, anyone can think of all, not accurately, but everyone gets the idea, also every can conceptualize love.

This is not theology Your doing, it's nonsensicle wordgames in which you string Words together With no real meaning.

Also "God is love" is a biblican concept, if you're not basing Your theology on biblical exegesis, then on what is it based? If it is, then why do you deny the personhood of God?
 
RGacky3 said:
If God is all, then God is nothing, it's a Word that is meaningless, it doesn't deserve any attention at all .... also ALL is not love ... a rock =/= love .... Love is an emotion, and ****, emotions didn't exist before sentient beings existed, nor does love exist anywhere where sentient beings exist, so love doesn't exist in almost all the universe so obviously not God is not All if God is love, if love is all then rape is love, murder is love, but no, those are not love.
Click to expand...

That's sentence is about 4 or 5 strung together. I'll do my best to sum up response.

Rock is not all.

Rape and murder are actions that are committed - by humans - as a result of the absence of love. Hatred is the absence of love.

Love doesn't transcent everything, when you die Your love dies as well (ecclesiastes 9:5,6) love is an emotion that comes from sentient beings, it's derivative, not transcendent.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me as if you believe in "God" or a supreme being, then might I ask if you believe in an afterlife? Heaven?

God being unlimited doesn't mean God being equated With everything.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. If not then it means there are other gods. If not, it means "God" is not omnipotent.

Also if God is all, then God can be conceptualized, anyone can think of all, not accurately, but everyone gets the idea, also every can conceptualize love.
Click to expand...

"All" is a comparison.

This is not theology Your doing, it's nonsensicle wordgames in which you string Words together With no real meaning.
Click to expand...

No, it probably isn't theology. It certainly is not intended to be word games, however.

Also "God is love" is a biblican concept, if you're not basing Your theology on biblical exegesis, then on what is it based? If it is, then why do you deny the personhood of God?
Click to expand...

As I said just above I am not espousing a particular theology. Yes, I do deny "the personhood of God", whatever that means. I have never believed that "God" was a person. That concept would very much limit "God".
 
Risky Thicket said:
That's sentence is about 4 or 5 strung together. I'll do my best to sum up response.

Rock is not all.

Rape and murder are actions that are committed - by humans - as a result of the absence of love. Hatred is the absence of love.
Click to expand...

Rock is not all, but all includes Rock ....

All also incldues rape and murder .... obviously love is part of all, but so is Rock and Rape and Murder.

It sounds to me as if you believe in "God" or a supreme being, then might I ask if you believe in an afterlife? Heaven?
Click to expand...

I believe in ressurection, I believe in God as the bible reveals him .... personal supreme being.

Actually it does. If not then it means there are other gods. If not, it means "God" is not omnipotent.
Click to expand...

No .... it doesn't mean that at all, that's a rediculous fallacy.

Empire state building is not all, there are no other Empire state buildings however .....

But the bible talks about other Gods ... it talks about Satan as a God, it talks about angels as gods, it refers to false Gods, it refers to moses as a god ....

"All" is a comparison.
Click to expand...

No it isn't it's descriptive.

No, it probably isn't theology. It certainly is not intended to be word games, however.
Click to expand...

Well ... it is meant to be theology, since you are talking about the nature of God and revelation ..... Which is the definition of theology.

As I said just above I am not espousing a particular theology. Yes, I do deny "the personhood of God", whatever that means. I have never believed that "God" was a person. That concept would very much limit "God".
Click to expand...

Then on what basis do you say "God is love," I know where you got the idea from, the New testament, but it's obvious you don't view the New testament as authority or revelation, so on what basis do you say "god is love?"
 
RGacky3 said:
Rock is not all, but all includes Rock ....

All also incldues rape and murder .... obviously love is part of all, but so is Rock and Rape and Murder.
Click to expand...

There are no parts.



I believe in ressurection, I believe in God as the bible reveals him .... personal supreme being.
Click to expand...

But you don't believe in afterlife or heaven?


No .... it doesn't mean that at all, that's a rediculous fallacy.

Empire state building is not all, there are no other Empire state buildings however .....
Click to expand...

How do you know there is no other Empire State Building? Even if there were a building exactly like the Empire State Building and it was called the Empire State Building there would be two, would there not? Now you have an even greater comparison! Even one building would be a comparison.

It's simple set theory.

But the bible talks about other Gods ... it talks about Satan as a God, it talks about angels as gods, it refers to false Gods, it refers to moses as a god ....
Click to expand...

I understand that. In that context then "God" is limited. God is not omnipotent. Would you agree?

Well ... it is meant to be theology, since you are talking about the nature of God and revelation ..... Which is the definition of theology.
Click to expand...

It isn't meant to be theology. Obviously we have different concepts. Also, I don't subscribe to the concept of revelation.

Then on what basis do you say "God is love," I know where you got the idea from, the New testament, but it's obvious you don't view the New testament as authority or revelation, so on what basis do you say "god is love?"
Click to expand...

No, I am not getting any of this from the New Testament. As I stated above, I'm not into the concept of revelation either.
 
Let's say God was already here as Jesus. Even if half the stories are true that he healed the sick, fed the multitudes, turned water into wine, walked on water and raised the dead WHY did he let them kill him? Why didn't he just force them to love Him without them knowing it? Surely it wouldn't have been too difficult for someone who performed all those miracles.
 
Risky Thicket said:
There are no parts.
Click to expand...

... Yes there are parts of all .... since all is the sumation of everything that is,.

But you don't believe in afterlife or heaven?
Click to expand...

I do. I believe in the ressurection (a type of after life), and that there is a heaven, but I don't believe it's a physical Place or something like that.

How do you know there is no other Empire State Building? Even if there were a building exactly like the Empire State Building and it was called the Empire State Building there would be two, would there not? Now you have an even greater comparison! Even one building would be a comparison.

It's simple set theory.
Click to expand...

Lets assume there is no other Empire State building (not a Wild assumption), in that case ... there is no other empire state building .... Lets say there is only me .... me not being all dosen't mean there must be others.

In other Words it's a logicall fallacy to say "unless something is all there must be more of that type of thing." The conclusion simply doesn't follow, there is no logical Connection.

I understand that. In that context then "God" is limited. God is not omnipotent. Would you agree?
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by Omnipotent, if by omnipotent you mean he is all powerful to do whatever he must accomplish, then yes, but the bible states there are Things God CANNOT do, he CANNOT lie, he CANNOT abridge his own justice and love, so he cannot do certain Things, but he is all powerful .... meaning there are no Power limits to what he can do in line With his nature.

Taking away personhood from God means taking away agency, if you say God is All, and thus not personal, not even distinct he's not omnipotent, he's most impotent .... he can't do anything, he has no agency, he has no Power ....

This is why theology is important, so you don't end up contradicting yourself all over the Place and make statements about god that sound Nice but are nonsense.

It isn't meant to be theology. Obviously we have different concepts. Also, I don't subscribe to the concept of revelation.
Click to expand...

You are making claims about the nature of God, i.e. theology ..... by definition.

No, I am not getting any of this from the New Testament. As I stated above, I'm not into the concept of revelation either.
Click to expand...

Then on what basis do you say "God is love?"
 
grip said:
Let's say God was already here as Jesus. Even if half the stories are true that he healed the sick, fed the multitudes, turned water into wine, walked on water and raised the dead WHY did he let them kill him? Why didn't he just force them to love Him without them knowing it? Surely it wouldn't have been too difficult for someone who performed all those miracles.
Click to expand...

God gave man free will ... and he made them in his own image i.e. as free agents ... Had he done what you propose he would be going against his own decree.
 
RGacky3 said:
God gave man free will ... and he made them in his own image i.e. as free agents ... Had he done what you propose he would be going against his own decree.
Click to expand...


But according to Exodus He hardened the Pharaoh's heart when Moses ask him to let God's people go?
 
Kreton said:
LOL I said the same thing in another thread. And apparently some people think if you believe a fact that the fact in then a belief.
Click to expand...

atheists should understand that the facts arent believed ,they are accepted:cool:

like evolution for instance

many atheists accuse some believers of not accepting some scientific facts but they ignore that the god isnt something to be proven.
 
Last edited:
RGacky3 said:
... Yes there are parts of all .... since all is the sumation of everything that is,.
Click to expand...

How many parts are in a steel ball? Where is the top or the bottom?

I do. I believe in the ressurection (a type of after life), and that there is a heaven, but I don't believe it's a physical Place or something like that.
Click to expand...

I think we agree that after we leave our present form we will take live in a spiritual form. What will afterlife be like? Will there be race wars, will there be Christians fighting Muslims and Protestants arguing with Catholics. Will there be hatred for Jews and Buddhists? Will men and women be truly and totally equal?

Lets assume there is no other Empire State building (not a Wild assumption), in that case ... there is no other empire state building .... Lets say there is only me .... me not being all dosen't mean there must be others.
Click to expand...
How do we determine there is no other Empire State Building? How do we determine there is no other being?

In other Words it's a logicall fallacy to say "unless something is all there must be more of that type of thing." The conclusion simply doesn't follow, there is no logical Connection.
Click to expand...

All is a comparison. How do you determine when you have or do not have all?

Depends what you mean by Omnipotent, if by omnipotent you mean he is all powerful to do whatever he must accomplish, then yes, but the bible states there are Things God CANNOT do, he CANNOT lie, he CANNOT abridge his own justice and love, so he cannot do certain Things, but he is all powerful .... meaning there are no Power limits to what he can do in line With his nature.
Click to expand...

Is pure love a lie?

Taking away personhood from God means taking away agency, if you say God is All, and thus not personal, not even distinct he's not omnipotent, he's most impotent .... he can't do anything, he has no agency, he has no Power ....
Click to expand...

If you say "God" is a person and that person is a man then women are not God's gender. God made a choice to be a man? Why? Does "God" have a penis and balls? I think not. If "God" is pure love what can be greater?

This is why theology is important, so you don't end up contradicting yourself all over the Place and make statements about god that sound Nice but are nonsense.
Click to expand...

I haven't contradicted.

You are making claims about the nature of God, i.e. theology ..... by definition.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am saying God is love. Are you saying that "God" is not love?

Then on what basis do you say "God is love?"
Click to expand...

How is "God" not love?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Actually, I don't use the word "God" unless I'm talking to Christians. I don't mind using it, but I find the concept limiting. To be honest, "God" can't be conceptualized. "God" is ALL. There is nothing but "God" and even ALL is a comparison. Something would have to exist outside of "God" or beyond "God" to which it would be compared. If that were the case "God" would be limited. Love transcends everything. Love is all. "God" is love.
Click to expand...

The only way God could be All is for us to be apart of God. It's amazing how people can't seem to grasp that concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom