Tangible proof that God exists

Originally posted by FMF
Bingo.

Perhaps later, but let's continue with this discussion for a while longer...

Originally posted by Suzianne

...Those who DID receive proof of His existence have always been those who have already made the choice to believe. Thus, it follows that the important part of this is our CHOICE to either believe in Him, or not, and our free will to make this choice must not be infringed by anything, including proof. Those who want proof, want the responsibility for the choice to be taken from them, and this just ain't happenin'.[/b]

So, no atheist has ever existed who was converted to Christianity by proof of God's existence?!

I'm sure we've been here before.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I cannot offer tangible proof that God exists.

This is because proof of His existence would violate our free will choice to believe in Him or not. If His existence were proven, then we could not choose to not believe it, just as we cannot choose to believe that the Earth is flat, unless, of course, we are either stupid or just stubborn. And so our free ...[text shortened]... of, want the responsibility for the choice to be taken from them, and this just ain't happenin'.

This is because proof of His existence would violate our free will choice to believe in Him or not. If His existence were proven, then we could not choose to not believe it, just as we cannot choose to believe that the Earth is flat, unless, of course, we are either stupid or just stubborn. And so our free will choice is maintained by not having proof.

And yet people still seem to be able to believe in a flat Earth.

Your argument doesn't work on many levels.
First, it's demonstrable that 'free will' as required by you and your religion does not and indeed cannot exist.

Second, it is clearly and obviously possible for people to believe [or disbelieve] when all the evidence in the
world is pointing to the opposite. The massive disbelief in global warming, evolution, the safety of vaccines, etc etc
all demonstrate the fact that people can and do disbelieve that for which we have massive amounts of evidence
sufficient to prove beyond doubt the truth of the claim to any rational person. This proves beyond dispute that
your claim that even if 'free will' as you describe it did exist, having proof for a claim does not violate it.

Third, your claim that the most important thing is that people believe that your god exists is clearly wrong.
It's not that people believe in your god, it's that people worship your god.
You could prove that your god existed beyond all reasonable doubt and I would accept that your god existed,
I would believe in it's existence, and I STILL wouldn't worship it. Indeed if your god existed I would be trying to
work out how to kill it. I'm pretty sure that's not what you have in mind when you think of people who 'believe'
in your god. What you are picturing and requiring is worship, and not just belief.
Proof of your god's existence even IF free will existed and even IF such proof did violate that free will would still
not result in everyone having no free will over whether to worship such a god which is what your religion actually
requires.

Fourth, we do not choose in any meaningful way what we believe. We can be swayed by evidence and we can choose
how we go looking for and analysing evidence. but you cannot simply 'choose' to believe something or not.
I couldn't just choose to believe in your god even if I wanted to, I would have to have evidence and a reason to
believe. Without it, I can't make myself believe in the existence of beings for which we have no evidence, let
alone beings for which we have massive evidence to the contrary for.


Any one of these points proves your argument to be invalid, and the second one is blindingly obviously demonstrably
observably true. You cannot deny that people disbelieve proven facts all the time without yourself demonstrating the
same phenomena. You yourself rail against people who disbelieve these facts. That on it's own disproves your position
completely and utterly.

Those who DID receive proof of His existence have always been those who have already made the choice to believe. Thus, it follows that the important part of this is our CHOICE to either believe in Him, or not, and our free will to make this choice must not be infringed by anything, including proof. Those who want proof, want the responsibility for the choice to be taken from them, and this just ain't happenin'.

No, that's not it at all.

I believe in rational scientific skepticism.
A basic tenet of which is that you do not believe ANYTHING without sufficient evidence to justify such a belief.
There are dozens of major religions, with even more gods, and thousands of religions that have ever existed with
tens of thousands of gods proposed.
I have no reason to suppose any of them were not man made fictions, and no reason to prefer [from a truth standpoint]
any of those proposed gods over any others.
So why, if I were to abandon my skepticism and decide to believe in a god or gods based on faith, should I pick your
proposed god over any of the thousands of other available choices [assuming I don't decide to invent a brand new one]?

There is nothing other than whether I like the sound of that god/religion or not. Given that I was not raised in and indoctrinated
into any particular religion. You have by your own admission no evidence to offer me to guide my choice.
And I find your religion to be repulsive, so if I'm going to choose a religion it's going to be some other religion and some other
god.

But of course most if not all of these god concepts are mutually exclusive, and if any of them are actually real the vast
majority must be false. You claim that all but one is false. Well given that I have a choice of thousands if not tens of thousands
then I am almost guaranteed to pick a false god over a real one even being generous enough to grant that not only does a
god or gods exist but that one of the gods or sets of gods humans have worshipped over the millennia was actually real.
The odds get much much much worse if you allow for either of those not to be true.
So my choice will almost certainly be wrong.

So 'faith' seems to be living up to it's reputation for almost guaranteeing that whatever you choose to believe based upon it
is likely to be wrong.

So I don't believe based on faith, I believe based on evidence.

I am not going to make an exception for you, or anybody else.

This is not because I want responsibility for my choices taken away from me. It's because I take responsibility for the
choices I make that I do not, will not, and cannot, believe based on faith.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I cannot offer tangible proof that God exists.

This is because proof of His existence would violate our free will choice to believe in Him or not. ... Thus, it follows that the important part of this is our CHOICE to either believe in Him, or not, and our free will to make this choice must not be infringed by anything, including proof.

Right! Our choice here is infringed only by the complete LACK of proof of His existence.

Which identifies what sort of person God wants in Heaven.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is our faith that God desires for his reasons.

That would seem to contradict your earlier statement:

It is the whole of the universe *all of it* that screams God is real to me.

Either you have good reasons to think God exists (and thus no faith) or you do not have good reasons to think God exists (and thus your 'faith' is not wisely placed).
Which is it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
I cannot offer tangible proof that God exists.

This is because proof of His existence would violate our free will choice to believe in Him or not. If His existence were proven, then we could not choose to not believe it, just as we cannot choose to believe that the Earth is flat, unless, of course, we are either stupid or just stubborn.

Your assertion that proof violates freewill is manifestly untrue as you prove yourself.

People have the freewill to believe in a flat earth.

You may think them stupid but that is only as most atheists see theists rationale for a god.

Originally posted by FMF
Bingo.

Enough about your dog. Try contributing to the thread. Or not.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what are you defining as proof? if god speaks to a person, appears to a person or sends an angel to a person is that considered proof ?(to the witness )

Yes, I'd call all of that "proof". Especially helpful would be if he did "God-like" things in your presence, for example teleporting you 10,000 feet into the air without falling or 10,000 feet below the sea without drowning. If all he did was claim to be God, I guess he could be George Burns or Morgan Freeman.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Can you explain why choosing to believe in the absence of evidence/proof is a good thing? What is good about it?

How would Christianity, in any substantive way, be diminished or materially changed if God did provide this proof?

I explained all that in my post. The bit about free will. It's all about the choice.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I explained all that in my post.

No, you did not, as pointed out by multiple posters asking for further clarification.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have consistently repeated those claims for years on this forum without ever giving an explanation as to why God wants you to make a 'free will' decision to believe in him despite the lack of solid evidence. Why is the CHOICE so important?

Edit: I see other posters have asked the same thing.

There is a clear choice: between God and mammon. In the Old Testament, the clear choice was between the things of God and the things of man, between God and self, between God and greed. In the New Testament, the choice changes subtly but significantly: the choice becomes between Christ and sin, between life and death, between good and evil.

The entire message of the Bible is the message of choice, that a choice must be made. Every story in the Bible, every parable, represents a choice. From Adam's choice, ill-made, to the choice of all in the last days to follow the Beast or to follow God, the Bible is all about choice. Man must choose, so that he owns his choice and no one can say that he had no choice. Each man's destiny is in his own hands. Each man chooses to live or to die. What could possibly be more fair than that?

Originally posted by googlefudge
[quote]This is because proof of His existence would violate our free will choice to believe in Him or not. If His existence were proven, then we could not choose to not believe it, just as we cannot choose to believe that the Earth is flat, unless, of course, we are either stupid or just stubborn. And so our free will choice is maintained by not having ...[text shortened]... onsibility for the
choices I make that I do not, will not, and cannot, believe based on faith.

This is a cop-out. You create rules for yourself and you claim that these rules deny you the ability to choose. But by creating the rules, you have already chosen. You claim there is no free will so that at the end of things, you can try to claim, "But I did not realistically have a choice!" You are trying to avoid the responsibility for your own decisions. It really doesn't matter how many times you scream, "Nuh-uh!!"

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart, a man wise beyond his years.

And that people consistently deny proven facts, is true. And I accounted for it. I said, "If His existence were proven, then we could not choose to not believe it, just as we cannot choose to believe that the Earth is flat, unless, of course, we are either stupid or just stubborn." Facts are facts, even if you try to play the game of denying facts, which, as I said, makes one either stupid or stubborn.

And please, when you talk to me about God and choice and belief, do not insult me with trivia about how many gods people have believed in over time. Neither you nor I believe in any of these supposed "gods". Mentioning them is just vanity. "Look how many gods I don't believe in!"

"This is not because I want responsibility for my choices taken away from me. It's because I take responsibility for the choices I make that I do not, will not, and cannot, believe based on faith."

This is your error AND your choice. You have chosen, despite your fervent wish that you really have no choice. And you have chosen... poorly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, you did not, as pointed out by multiple posters asking for further clarification.

It's not my fault if people decide to ignore what I write. I'm not going to write it again, and again, and again, and... just no.

But I suppose you could try the fingers in your ears, singing "La, la, la, la, la, I can't hear you." It might not work, but it would amuse me.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Your assertion that proof violates freewill is manifestly untrue as you prove yourself.

People have the freewill to believe in a flat earth.

You may think them stupid but that is only as most atheists see theists rationale for a god.

Well, guess what? That's their choice.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
So, no atheist has ever existed who was converted to Christianity by proof of God's existence?!

I'm sure we've been here before.

Even Jacob (Jacob already believed in God) and Paul, who arguably had "proof" shown to them, were free to decide that was NOT God, or, in Paul's case, Jesus. Was it hard "courtroom" proof? No. If that happened today, people would no doubt try to explain it away as "hallucination" or the result of trauma of some kind.

There's no doubt that there exist atheists who do come to God, and Christians or Jews who abandon God, but they weren't coerced into believing or disbelieving by any "proof".