prove that god exist

[esctec]

                        Caleb jw org - great comeback

 

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Shawnster
fixed link

[Pjdriver]

Excellent brother Eelke, I think many people accept evolution because they can't reconcile bad things with the existence of a creator. If everyone was happy and content many more people would believe in a creator. People are fickle.

 

 When I started to point to all the design around us and our own bodies...one fellow immediately started pointing out how this could be better and that could be better. I pointed out to him that regardless of any flaws in creation you think there  are, or even the bad things people are doing.....does not change the fact that there is abundant evidence of intelligent design.

You may not like the floor plan of a particular house or the people living there.....but you wouldn't deny the existence of an architect or builder.

 

 

[Qapla]

Enjoyed the video. You could see that the barber was giving the argument some real thought.

 

What I was wondering .... what did that guy with the long hair think? After the discussion he had a look of deep thought on his face. Was he contemplating the existence of God .... or, was he thinking he really needed a haircut

 

Eelke, looks like this may be your first post. Keep 'em coming.

[Pjdriver]

I forget where I got this, but I found it interesting. Good for those philosophical types we might run into.

 

The Argument from Efficient Causality

 

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

 

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being, only so long as they are given, being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.
But caused by what? 

 

Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being, is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

 

Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. 
If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

 

There must have been a first cause....something or someone had to have always existed.

  Was this first cause God?

 

Which makes more sense?: 
  1)   Order, intelligence, and life come from an intelligent, organized living being. e.g.  An intelligent cause
                                                    Or

2)     Order, intelligence, and life come about by random chances from nothing, therefore without the involvement of intelligence and/or life.                      e.g. Unintelligent cause

 

It could only be one or the other. What does your intelligent mind tell you?

Edited January 24, 2017 by Pjdriver

[Friends just call me Ross]

[jwhess]

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”   --Stuart Chase (Philosopher)

 

Toward belief in God, it has been paraphrased as: “For a true believer, no proof is necessary.  For a dedicated atheist, no proof is ever enough.”

[esctec]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFgT4-nZr0Q

for those with no fb account

[carlos]

Most people I talk with are not staunch atheists, they simply believe in evolution because that's what they have been taught and they never gave it much thought.

 

With those people, one argument I am using lately that is simple but powerful is why do people like music. What evolutionary advantage is there in music? Or in art? Humans invest a lot of time and resources in creating and enjoying pieces of art that don't have any practical use at all. Why did man develop that need for art and music that doesn't contribute anything to his survival and makes him waste a lot of resources instead?

 

That undeniable fact doesn't agree at all with evolutionary tenets.

[thebluebaron]

Over-hearing a conversation about whether the chicken or the egg came first led me to answer it with another question, "what would come first, child or a women?"

[Shawnster]

On 1/24/2017 at 7:56 AM, carlos said:

Most people I talk with are not staunch atheists, they simply believe in evolution because that's what they have been taught and they never gave it much thought.

 

With those people, one argument I am using lately that is simple but powerful is why do people like music. What evolutionary advantage is there in music? Or in art? Humans invest a lot of time and resources in creating and enjoying pieces of art that don't have any practical use at all. Why did man develop that need for art and music that doesn't contribute anything to his survival and makes him waste a lot of resources instead?

 

That undeniable fact doesn't agree at all with evolutionary tenets.

 

By extension morals, love, selflessness... all of these are counter to evolutionary "survival of the fittest."  Some could say that love is an evolutionary trait as it is necessary for the survival of the species.  Depends on the type or quality of love, doesn't it?  Evolutionary traits are selfish traits because it perpetuates the constant need to adapt to survive and change.  Benefit yourself and your family.  

[Bob]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 7:56 AM, carlos said:

Most people I talk with are not staunch atheists, they simply believe in evolution because that's what they have been taught and they never gave it much thought.

 

With those people, one argument I am using lately that is simple but powerful is why do people like music. What evolutionary advantage is there in music? Or in art? Humans invest a lot of time and resources in creating and enjoying pieces of art that don't have any practical use at all. Why did man develop that need for art and music that doesn't contribute anything to his survival and makes him waste a lot of resources instead?

 

That undeniable fact doesn't agree at all with evolutionary tenets.

And a simple form of that argument I use is why don't animals do it, yet, they've been around longer than humans and thrived without art, music, etc.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Bob

[Qapla]

If evolution comes from the survival of the fittest ... and the species called mankind is the "top dog" .... what will happen to mankind after a few generations of homosexual proliferation ..... 

 

So, instead of man "evolving" into something better, he is going to obliterate himself through lack of procreation.

 

Aren't we glad we not only have Jehovah's code of morals, we also have the full faith the Jehovah IS ". . .and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him." (Hebrews 11:6)