Proof (Note Mod Warning Post 36)

marty1985

A physics professor has written a six page proof for the existence of God, that is not only unassailably true, but demonstrates that the cruelty of the world and the goodness of God are not contradictory anymore.

That's the set up for a Laurence Cosse novel, so we have to suspend our skepticism and go along with the idea that proof is obvious upon a single reading of a short document.

The interesting thing is that while everyone who reads it is convinced, church officials and government officials decide that it can not be made public because it will do more harm than good, and the decision is not as patronising as it sounds. It's full of insightful reflections on human nature.

"Look at the Crusades, the Inquisitors, as well as the atheist revolutionaries: all of them slashed and burned and guillotined, completely confident they were doing the right thing. In the end, doubt is the only counterweight to human madness."

"The primacy of economic matters will crumble. 90% of human undertakings will look foolish, meaningless, pathetic."

Just wondering, if you guys could know for sure, believers or not, would you actually want to know?

The Quadratic Equation

There is no irrefutable proof that God exists.
There is no irrefutable proof that God does not exist.
God gave us the gift of free will to choose for a reason.
Irrefutable proof would remove that free will, and effectively we would just be automatons.
Like any loving parent, God knows the true value of voluntary love from your children and creation, not forced love.
Eternal life is for those who accept it and believe in it.
Unfortunately the rest will remain voluntary in eternal darkness, trapped by themselves.
God is not an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud.
God is an infinite eternal spirit. God is love.
Seek and you shall find that spirit and eternal life though our Saviour Jesus Christ.
In the beginning there was The Word, and that word was made flesh.
The Alpha and the Omega. The First and the Last.
For believers no proof is necessary, for non believers, no proof will ever be enough.

Slozer

marty1985 wrote: »

A physics professor has written a six page proof for the existence of God, that is not only unassailably true, but demonstrates that the cruelty of the world and the goodness of God are not contradictory anymore.

That's the set up for a Laurence Cosse novel, so we have to suspend our skepticism and go along with the idea that proof is obvious upon a single reading of a short document.

The interesting thing is that while everyone who reads it is convinced, church officials and government officials decide that it can not be made public because it will do more harm than good, and the decision is not as patronising as it sounds. It's full of insightful reflections on human nature.

"Look at the Crusades, the Inquisitors, as well as the atheist revolutionaries: all of them slashed and burned and guillotined, completely confident they were doing the right thing. In the end, doubt is the only counterweight to human madness."

"The primacy of economic matters will crumble. 90% of human undertakings will look foolish, meaningless, pathetic."

Just wondering, if you guys could know for sure, believers or not, would you actually want to know?

This is not proof. It must be publisher and verified by other scientists before it can become proof. Its only a theory.

PDN

marty1985 wrote: »

but demonstrates that the cruelty of the world and the goodness of God are not contradictory anymore.

They never were contradictory, but I guess that's for another thread.

readyletsgo

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

For believers no proof is necessary, for non believers, no proof will ever be enough.

I'm sorry but that is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard!

Yes I understand believers do not need proof, they can believe what they like. But for non-believer, no proof will be enough? There is NO physical proof, end of.

Morbert

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Irrefutable proof would remove that free will, and effectively we would just be automatons.

I had proof my parents existed. I still disobeyed them on several occasions.

This is not proof. It must be publisher and verified by other scientists before it can become proof. Its only a theory.

It's a fictional novel.

The Quadratic Equation

readyletsgo wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is the most stupidest thing I have ever heard!

Yes I understand believers do not need proof, they can believe what they like. But for non-believer, no proof will be enough? There is NO physical proof, end of.

And if there was, you would still dispute it, no matter what it was.
That's the point.

readyletsgo

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

And if there was, you would still dispute it, no matter what it was.
That's the point.

Eh, no I wouldnt, if it was proof of a man/woman/being claiming to be 'god' I would deffo look into it and prob believe. But we are evolved monkeys so...

dvae

Not trying to be funny but there is a book with many inspired authors called the Bible. Proof of Gods existence can be found with in its pages.
One only has to look at many of the fur filled prophesy in which the Bible has for told.
Man and science are always looking for proof of Gods existence or non existence. If tomorrow we were given proof that the Turin shroud did contain the blood of Jesus Christ or some one discovered Noah's ark and its final resting place there would be skeptics and non believers. Jesus performed great miracles and raised people from the dead but many at that time refused to believe.

marty1985 wrote: »

A physics professor has written a six page proof for the existence of God, that is not only unassailably true, but demonstrates that the cruelty of the world and the goodness of God are not contradictory anymore.

There is no link between the cruelty of this world and God as it is written many times that the power of this world lies with the wicket one (Satan).
For a short time to come Satan will remain the ruler of this world until God takes it back.

readyletsgo

I'm glad you get solis from the Bible, each to their own and all, but to me it is just a re-re-re-re-re-edited big book of fiction from 1700 or less years ago.

Aliens! ;-P

The Quadratic Equation

readyletsgo wrote: »

Eh, no I wouldnt, if it was proof of a man/woman/being claiming to be 'god' I would deffo look into it and prob believe.

So what proof would you accept as irrefutable ?

readyletsgo wrote: »

But we are evolved monkeys so...

Actually we evolved from a common Primate Ancestor, and that contradicts nothing in Christianity.
It is the how and the tools used for our evolution, not the why. It's a bit like trying to say sure we are only a sperm and an egg combined.

The limited physical science we know, although interesting and useful, rightly does not attempt to explain anything outside its limited physical field, including the metaphysical. Science is not God.

antiskeptic

marty1985 wrote: »

Just wondering, if you guys could know for sure, believers or not, would you actually want to know?

I do already know for sure.

readyletsgo

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

So what proof would you accept as irrefutable ?

I cant answer that until I see it with my own eyes tbh.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Actually we evolved from a common Primate Ancestor, and that contradicts nothing in Christianity.
It is the how and the tools used for our evolution, not the why. It's a bit like trying to say sure we are only a sperm and an egg combined.

The limited physical science we know, although interesting and useful, rightly does not attempt to explain anything outside its limited physical field, including the metaphysical. Science is not God.

Aren't we?


Just on another note that Dvae said

If tomorrow we were given proof that the Turin shroud did contain the blood of Jesus Christ

If scientists could extract the blood of the man 'Jesus' from that said cloth and were able to clone him. Would this be classed as the second coming? Or an abomination?



I am really not trying to troll here at all! I am just a 30 year old man with my own beliefs, you have yours, not saying there is anything wrong with that, I just find it hard to believe this whole story(sorry if thats rude).
Can you not see how I would see the bible as a very hard/unbelievable pill to swollow?

Newsite

readyletsgo wrote: »

I cant answer that until I see it with my own eyes tbh.

Sounds familiar - approx 2,000 years ago someone said the very very same thing:

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

That was 'doubting Thomas', a man who had seen Jesus AFTER he was crucified!!

So what proof would you require? None would suffice - that is antiskeptic's point.

readyletsgo

Newsite wrote: »

Sounds familiar - approx 2,000 years ago someone said the very very same thing:

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

That was 'doubting Thomas', a man who had seen Jesus AFTER he was crucified!!

So what proof would you require? None would suffice - that is antiskeptic's point.

But do you not see, to me, that is just some words someone wrote 200 odd years AFTER the death of Jesus.

I dont think there is any arguing on here anyway so going to leave and let you's get on with it.

Laters!

rossc007

Well you can color me a believer if God can part the sea or resurrect the dead. If I saw those or a similar miracle, then I'd 100% believe.

PDN

readyletsgo wrote: »

But do you not see, to me, that is just some words someone wrote 200 odd years AFTER the death of Jesus.

The consensus among scholars is that John's Gospel was written at some point between 50AD and 90AD (20 to 60 years after the death of Jesus). So your dating is off by a century or more.

Newsite

PDN wrote: »

The consensus among scholars is that John's Gospel was written at some point between 50AD and 90AD (20 to 60 years after the death of Jesus). So your dating is off by a century or more.

Indeed. Not that it would make a jot of difference either way.

Keaton

marty1985 wrote: »

A physics professor has written a six page proof for the existence of God, that is not only unassailably true, but demonstrates that the cruelty of the world and the goodness of God are not contradictory anymore.

That's the set up for a Laurence Cosse novel, so we have to suspend our skepticism and go along with the idea that proof is obvious upon a single reading of a short document.

The interesting thing is that while everyone who reads it is convinced, church officials and government officials decide that it can not be made public because it will do more harm than good, and the decision is not as patronising as it sounds. It's full of insightful reflections on human nature.

"Look at the Crusades, the Inquisitors, as well as the atheist revolutionaries: all of them slashed and burned and guillotined, completely confident they were doing the right thing. In the end, doubt is the only counterweight to human madness."

"The primacy of economic matters will crumble. 90% of human undertakings will look foolish, meaningless, pathetic."

Just wondering, if you guys could know for sure, believers or not, would you actually want to know?

Is this book for sale?

PDN

Keaton wrote: »

Is this book for sale?

http://www.amazon.com/CORNER-VEIL-Novel-Laurence-Cosse/dp/B000H2MPPE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321548741&sr=1-2

readyletsgo

Keaton wrote: »

Is this book for sale?

Yes, went completly off topic there, I would like to find this book, give it a read myself too.

Just wondering, if you guys could know for sure, believers or not, would you actually want to know?

Yeah I'd like to know, if they have proof, no skin off my nose, but for which religion would be the problem I would think.

The Quadratic Equation

readyletsgo wrote: »

I cant answer that until I see it with my own eyes

I can understand that, but maybe you could give us an idea. To be honest I don't think any physical proof or action would be sufficient. Many thousands of people saw Jesus in the flesh, heard his words, saw his actions, and yet failed to believe. Yet many thousands did.

readyletsgo wrote: »

Aren't we?

No we are much more than a mere bag of cells and chemicals, we are lives, hopes, aspirations, love, thoughts, actions, spirit and soul.

readyletsgo wrote: »

If scientists could extract the blood of the man 'Jesus' from that said cloth and were able to clone him. Would this be classed as the second coming? Or an abomination?

Neither, unless God decided otherwise, I imagine he would just be a mere mortal twin brother.

readyletsgo wrote: »

I am really not trying to troll here at all! I am just a 30 year old man with my own beliefs, you have yours, not saying there is anything wrong with that, I just find it hard to believe this whole story(sorry if thats rude).

Can you not see how I would see the bible as a very hard/unbelievable pill to swollow

We're just having an interesting discussion, you're entitled to your own beliefs, but it may come as a surprise to you that most theists are not as irrational as you might have come to believe.

You make a belief choice, either you believe the big bang and everything in the universe and creation was a mere multi billion to one random accident and nothing created something, with no uncaused cause, or you believe there could be an uncaused cause, which is an infinitely powerful creational spirit and energy.

We have no contemporary accounts of many historical figures, including Socrates the founder of Western Philosophy, Hannibal of Carthage etc., and all credible professional historians agree that, whether you believe what he said or not, Jesus Christ did exist. The new testament, among other things, is the eyewitness's accounts and statements.

Either you believe Jesus was mad, bad, or telling the truth, or the Apostles and their successors gave up everything, including their lives, possessions, and families, for something they just made in order to gain only persecution and death. Or they were telling the truth.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

And if there was, you would still dispute it, no matter what it was.
That's the point.

I believe Hitler existed, doesn't mean I have to be a Nazi.

The idea that believers have to follow God, and thus non-believers subconsciously oppress belief in order to continue to live their sinful lives, is not only illogical it is also contradicted by your own religion which supposes a whole army of non-believers who continue to refuse to accept and follow God despite clearly knowing he exists.

As for proof, rearranging the stars to spell out "Christians were right" in 14 different languages would be a good start, unfortunately all us non-believers ever get are parlour tricks :P

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea that believers have to follow God, and thus non-believers subconsciously oppress belief in order to continue to live their sinful lives, is not only illogical it is also contradicted by your own religion which supposes a whole army of non-believers who continue to refuse to accept and follow God despite clearly knowing he exists.

Where have I claimed believers in God's existance automatically follow him ? Lucifer, Judas, etc. clearly did not, that is basic. Thats a seperate point. The point I am making is no matter what proof some people would be shown it would never be enough.

Zombrex wrote: »

As for proof, rearranging the stars to spell out "Christians were right" in 14 different languages would be a good start, unfortunately all us non-believers ever get are parlour tricks :P

But that is also parlour trick, if you looked outside tonight and say them in the night sky, I dount your first reaction would be "there, God does exist". There would be a 1001 alternative excuses made up as to why what happened, and what you saw, was not proof of God's existance.

The Quadratic Equation

rossc007 wrote: »

Well you can color me a believer if God can part the sea or resurrect the dead. If I saw those or a similar miracle, then I'd 100% believe.

Would you ? Actually there would be 1001 ways to explain them away as mistaken perceptions, they were not really dead, medical paralysis, coma etc., misunderstood improperly observed natural tidal/tsunami retraction, etc. etc. There is no physical proof that will ever satisfy a non believer.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Where have I claimed believers in God's existance automatically follow him ? Lucifer, Judas, etc. clearly did not, that is basic. Thats a seperate point. The point I am making is no matter what proof some people would be shown it would never be enough.

What are you basing that one other than the idea that atheists have an irrational subconscious desire to reject evidence for the existence of God?

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

But that is also parlour trick, there would be a 1001 alternative excuses made up as to why what happened was not proof of God's existance.

There are? Can you think of a natural explanation for how the stars would suddenly re-arrange themselves to spell out a sentence in English?

Like I said everyone believes Hitler existed, no one thinks that was a parlour trick. The universe does not find it difficult to produce "proof" of things when it wants to. Perhaps God just doesn't want to?

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

Like I said everyone believes Hitler existed

Like I've said, all reputable historians agree that Jesus Christ existed, people seen Jesus in the flesh, still many did not believe, and many did. Other than trying a Godwin/Strawman, I'm still not sure what Hitler has to do with this topic.

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you think of a natural explanation for how the stars would suddenly re-arrange themselves to spell out a sentence in English?

If you looked up and seen them tonight, how would you know they were stars ? Why would you believe ?
No natural explanation does not equal irrefutable proof God exists. What natural explanation is there for the cause of the big bang ?

Zombrex wrote: »

The universe does not find it difficult to produce "proof" of things when it wants to. Perhaps God just doesn't want to?

There are lots of things in the Universe that have no proof yet, the cause of the big bang etc.
As for God not providing irefutable proof, I can see why, as it would effectively remove free will to decide and work it out for yourself.

aquarian_fire

If a physicist wrote a proof of the existence of God it would need to be peer-approved. Seeing as that is impossible, due to the fact there is no way to "test" for the presence of a deity and no way to assess the reproducibility of the "proof", it would be viewed scientifically as no more than a waste of paper.
Honestly, if you believe in God, why would you even need to make a big deal over the fact that a scientific figure wrote something to do with your beliefs, as if it made you more right? Wouldn't your faith be enough?

PDN

Can we keep this on topic, please?

The thread is about a novel, and about whether Christians think proof would somehow damage their faith.

If atheists want to argue about what they see as lack of proof then please take it to the Atheist/Christian debate thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056276998

The Quadratic Equation

marty1985 wrote: »

"Look at the Crusades, the Inquisitors, as well as the atheist revolutionaries: all of them slashed and burned and guillotined, completely confident they were doing the right thing.

Actually they did it for political power and personal gain, whose to say they were actually completely confident that God did not exist and therefore they felt safe to carry out these acts as they knew there would be no day of reckoning or eternal consequences for their acts ?

marty1985 wrote: »

In the end, doubt is the only counterweight to human madness."

This is rubbish

marty1985 wrote: »

"The primacy of economic matters will crumble. 90% of human undertakings will look foolish, meaningless, pathetic."

About 95% of the worlds population already believe that God exists in one form or another, so for starters the novel's presumption is already rubbish.

Fanny Cradock

Why God doesn't write his name in stars across the sky prepossesses that the stars themselves don't in some way point to a Creator. Still, if I could know the answer then, yes, I think I would jump at the chance. I imagine it would slap me out of my spiritual sleepwalking. I can't imagine what the effects would be on the world if God suddenly made himself know to each and every one of us. The sudden knowledge that there is a God wouldn't, I imagine, make the world a better place.

aquarian_fire wrote: »

If a physicist wrote a proof of the existence of God it would need to be peer-approved. Seeing as that is impossible, due to the fact there is no way to "test" for the presence of a deity and no way to assess the reproducibility of the "proof", it would be viewed scientifically as no more than a waste of paper.

Certain speculative physics - such as the various multiverse hypotheses - are untestable and unreproducible. So while they may be correct in principle there is no way to find out. If I am to understand correctly there is a argument brewing between scientists who stick rigidly to the cornerstones of testability and repeatability and those who go down a route that relies more upon speculations - albeit ones that are well conceived.

strobe

marty1985 wrote: »

Just wondering, if you guys could know for sure, believers or not, would you actually want to know?

Absolutely.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

So what proof would you accept as irrefutable?

A good one I heard before was that if at a certain decimal point of pi it was to suddenly break into 1's and 0's and the following binary code was to transcribe the Bible from cover to cover when converted into ASCII and then go on to make several predictions about Earth quakes and astrological events and things giving precise to the second timing and co-ordinates and describe cures for aids and cancer and what have you.

Embedding such a code could only be done by whoever created the shape 'circle' and therefore the universe(s).

(I'm not sure if it's possible for pi to start firing out 1's and 0's like that though, is it? Any maths heads here?)

The Quadratic Equation

strobe wrote: »

A good one I heard before was that if at a certain decimal point of pie it was to suddenly break into 1's and 0's and the following binary code was to transcribe the Bible from cover to cover when converted into ASCII and then go on to make several predictions about Earth quakes and astrological events and things giving precise to the second timing and co-ordinates and describe cures for aids and cancer and what have you.

Embedding such a code could only be done by whoever created the shape 'circle' and therefore the universe(s).

π is an irational number. Its decimal representation never ends and never repeats (beautiful). π is also a transcedental number, which implies, among other things, that no finite sequence of algebraic operations on integers (powers, roots, sums, etc.) can render its value; proving this fact was a significant mathematical achievement of the 19th century. Much as I love Mathematics (and Science), there are many things and proofs beyond its application.

marty1985

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I can't imagine what the effects would be on the world if God suddenly made himself know to each and every one of us. The sudden knowledge that there is a God wouldn't, I imagine, make the world a better place.

Agreed. I would imagine it would be a world filled with total fanaticism. It would be hard to get anything done. Another point raised in the book is that man would feel no further sense of responsibility for the world we live in. Personally, I would take a sneak peek at the document but I'd keep it quiet either way, I wouldn't tell any of you. If you really had to know, you could PM me.

PDN

Mod Warning

For the second time! Can we keep this on topic, please?

The thread is about a novel, and about whether Christians think proof would somehow damage their faith.

If atheists want to argue about what they see as lack of proof then please take it to the Atheist/Christian debate thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056276998

If posters keep ignoring this then I'm going to start handing out infractions rather than wasting my time deleting numerous off-topic posts.

Morbert

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Where have I claimed believers in God's existance automatically follow him ? Lucifer, Judas, etc. clearly did not, that is basic. Thats a seperate point. The point I am making is no matter what proof some people would be shown it would never be enough.

The Quadratic Equation wrote:

Irrefutable proof would remove that free will, and effectively we would just be automatons.

---

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I can't imagine what the effects would be on the world if God suddenly made himself know to each and every one of us. The sudden knowledge that there is a God wouldn't, I imagine, make the world a better place.

If God not only made himself known, but also "re-issued" his will via, say, commandments, I think it would make the world a far better place.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

---



If God not only made himself known, but also "re-issued" his will via, say, commandments, I think it would make the world a far better place.

As long as we are in the Christianity forum and thus assuming at least for arguments sake that there is a God and that the Bible is an reliable history of his interaction with us - then it appears that the Israelites didn't fair too well when it came to God's expectations. In many respects they weren't better than the surrounding tribes. God the Father was present amongst them and still they turned away and sinned.

I can't hep but think that until sin is no more a fallen world will remain just that - even with God amongst us.

parrai

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As long as we are in the Christianity forum and thus assuming at least for arguments sake that there is a God and that the Bible is an reliable history of his interaction with us - then it appears that the Israelites didn't fair too well when it came to God's expectations. In many respects they weren't better than the surrounding tribes. God the Father was present amongst them and still they turned away and sinned.

I can't hep but think that until sin is no more a fallen world will remain just that - even with God amongst us.

Would it be fair to say, that if He did return and provided a 'miracle/proof' that could not be disputed for His existance, that people would rebel anyway, given the fact humans by nature are self destructive? (self destructive being my opinion of what people are, by the way)

The Quadratic Equation

parrai wrote: »

Would it be fair to say, that if He did return and provided a 'miracle/proof' that could not be disputed for His existance, that people would rebel anyway, given the fact humans by nature are self destructive? (self destructive being my opinion of what people are, by the way)

Lucifer and a third of the angels had irrefutable proof in heaven, and yet, due to their pride and vainity, they still rebelled and became demons.

PDN

parrai wrote: »

Would it be fair to say, that if He did return and provided a 'miracle/proof' that could not be disputed for His existance, that people would rebel anyway, given the fact humans by nature are self destructive? (self destructive being my opinion of what people are, by the way)

Absolutely. Judas Iscariot is a prime example. Judas not only saw Jesus work miracles, but worked miracles himself in Jesus' name - yet he chose to reject Christ anyway.

marty1985

PDN wrote: »

parrai wrote: »

Would it be fair to say, that if He did return and provided a 'miracle/proof' that could not be disputed for His existance, that people would rebel anyway, given the fact humans by nature are self destructive? (self destructive being my opinion of what people are, by the way)

Absolutely. Judas Iscariot is a prime example. Judas not only saw Jesus work miracles, but worked miracles himself in Jesus' name - yet he chose to reject Christ anyway.

And Peter!

hairyheretic

PDN wrote: »

Absolutely. Judas Iscariot is a prime example. Judas not only saw Jesus work miracles, but worked miracles himself in Jesus' name - yet he chose to reject Christ anyway.

Didn't he have to, for the whole grand scheme of things?

parrai

hairyheretic wrote: »

Didn't he have to, for the whole grand scheme of things?

Jesus forsaw him betraying Him, hence the 'rebeling'. Judas knew who Jesus was, and this is evident by the guilt he felt, so much so, he hung himself at his shame.

The Quadratic Equation

hairyheretic wrote: »

Didn't he have to, for the whole grand scheme of things?

It did not have to be Judas. Judas using his own free will chose his own fate.

parrai

strobe wrote: »

Did Judas hang himself?

Apparently so...

strobe

parrai wrote: »

Apparently so...

Poor guy. Knowing what he knew, and he still flips the switch.

So is he in hell now then?

PDN

marty1985 wrote: »

And Peter!

Ah, he was just miffed because Jesus went and healed his mother-in-law.