I realize that many people believe in god, jesus, buddha, allah, etc.
However, what kind of proof is there to substantiate any of these beliefs?
All of these beliefs also coincide with each other, so if one of these were to be true, how would we know which one?
People who try to explain through personal testimony and “faith” really have no platform to stand on because each religion claims the same, and have followers who are so devoted as to kill themselves for their god.
I can’t say that god doesn’t exist because I don’t have proof of that either… But if I just made up a religion right now, say if you don’t pay me 1$ by the end of your life, you will be forever condemned and sent to hell, then you can’t prove that wrong either although I obviously made that up on the spot.
And the whole idea of a hell and a heaven is very shifty and dubious because people haven’t come back from the dead to tell us what happened, and those that have been legally dead and come back to life don’t all have the same experiences.
If there really WAS one correct religion, then why doesn’t god/buddha/allah etc. prove it to us by crushing the other religions?
Or not even that, but by demonstrating through a simple miracle as is told about all throughout the biblical times.
If anyone has an answer other than “faith” please reply.
Because this would take time away from God’s one true goal: to drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, GenericAzn, it’s our tears that give God his great power.
Longer answer: Outside the purportedly revealed scriptures of the religions in question, there is some historical and/or archaeological proof (but much less than is commonly believed – see here) of the historical narrative, but no evidence at all, historical, archaeological or scientific, of the supernatural elements. (WRT to Buddhism this is not, strictly speaking, important, since the essential doctrines have nothing to do with the supernatural; you find enlightenment by following the path, not by communing with or praying to the gods – Buddha assumed the Hindu gods’ existence but they’re beside the point because they’re in the same fix we are, trapped in the world of maya and bound to the wheel of karma, and not one step nearer enlightenment than any human. Buddha worked out his doctrines just by sitting down an thinking/meditating about the human condition. He claimed no divine revelation, was not any god’s prophet, and is himself not to be considered a god in any sense, though many Buddhists in Asia seem to worship him as such in practice.)
Non-revelatory (and likewise non-scientific and non-historical) philosophical arguments for the existence of God come under the heading of “natural theology.” Of course, while such arguments might support the existence of a generalized concept of “God,” such a being would have nothing necessarily to do with the Lord God of Israel of the Biblical narrative, nor could such arguments be used in support of any other element of Jewish, Christian, or Islamic doctrine. There is, e.g., no conceivable philosophical argument to prove the existence of sin (as distinct from evil) or the need for personal redemption therefrom as in Christianity.
As an atheist, I will try to weigh in here. Jesus, Moses, Buddha probably existed. It would be extremely difficult to make up the men and the legends surrounding them. There had been beliefs in a god or gods of some type probably for as long as humans were self aware. If a person very bright for his time stated that his knowledge came from a supreme being, he may be listened to a bit more than someone who said, “Hey listen to me, eating live animals is really a bad idea health wise. Also, try to love one another.” Through a deity into the mix, i.e. “God says this is the way to eternal life and happiness,” and you may get more people to listen to you.
My understanding of God and God’s plan is we will not get evidence in the objective sense. We won’t explore the moon and discover a tag saying ‘made by God’ (the tag on earth being long since removed as it was before the warning ‘this tag not to be removed under penalty of law’. If we look for such evidence God will frustrate such efforts.
We have to come to God as a child would, willing to be open, willing to accept things - things that our adult mind has been taught not to accept. If you do this God will make Himself known to you in a way that you won’t need any objective evidence.
Seriously, Liberal started a thread called ‘Define God’ about 3 months ago which, although started with the best of intentions, turned into a 500+ post long trainwreck in which issues were raised only to be obscured and from which nothing remotely approaching consensus on the central question arose. Suffice to say you can’t define God to the satisfaction of everyone because:
(a) Scripture is so muddled, ambiguous, contradictory, internally inconsistent, and just plain badly written that it is possible to put forward a bewildering panoply of distinct, yet scripturally defensible conceptions of God ranging from a draconian, prurient, genocidal deviant obsessed with fire and brimstone to a touchy-feely father figure who doesn’t really care if you believe in him or not so long as you’re really nice to people.
(b) This inability to define God clearly through scripture has led to people thinking it’s OK to define God however they like provided that they have good intentions. This leads to facile definitions of God as an emotion, a presence, or as one particularly fatuous religious apologist put it, “The condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves”. Sufficed to say, such entirely meaningless definitions only obfuscate things and make defining God even harder than it is already.
I think the best way to define God is to stick to the characteristics we know most people believe at this precise moment in time. I think the following definition accomplishes that rather well, although your mileage may well vary.
“God: Omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, triune uncaused first cause. Once took an active interest in human affairs, although has been rather quiet of late.”
Edit: The “fatuous religious apologist” referenced above is a literary critic. The quote appears in a review of Dawkins’ “God Delusion”. I was not referring to any Dopers.
When we become adults our level of proof becomes elevated. We can not just accept as a child any longer. We become able to distinguish between belief and even a slight bit of proof. With no proof offered don’t expect all to be able to still accept as children. If god existed he ,she or it would be capable of providing proof and surely would. Then we would all be able to agree.
It doesn’t work like that no more then someone can be born a adult. As children we grow into adults, likewise we have to learn God from the beginning (childhood) and grow into adults in God.
And God does provide all the proof one requires but on His terms not yours.
Trinue? You wouldn’t by chance have a specific god in mind, would you? The OP would seem to have thrown the door wide open to any god or believer who wandered in.
It would seem more prudent (in my somewhat humble opinion) for anybody who thinks they have proof of a god to present, to state what god they think is proven by their evidence.
Well, the OP can demand that he get answers taking a specific position, but it won’t always be an enforceable demand, or one we should feel compelled to follow. It’s not as if kanicbird is failing to address the OP’s question or hijacking the thread in directions irrelevant to the OP’s debate. You put something up for debate, you better be prepared to respond to all kinds of viewpoints; at the very least, the most commonly held viewpoints.
That having been said, by all means, feel free to attack kanicbird’s claims, or force him to back them up. Just don’t eject him from the table.
I know, when’s the last time some crazy story was just made up out of the blue and believed by a large number of people despite no supporting evidence in a literate, technologically advanced society? That’s just downright silly. So to say it could happen 2,000 years ago in an illiterate, uneducated peasant society, well, that’s just stretching my imagination.
