Is there ANY religious person who can give empirical, verifiable PROOF for what you believe?

Question

Personal belief and or quotations from holy writings are NOT proof. I mean tangible verifiable evidence that will stand up to a scientific analysis. Aaaand make it known to one and all!

The existence or non existence of God is irrelevent, that is NOT what was asked. Show PROOF of the personal beliefs you present to the world as fact. The beliefs religious people use to justify all their abhorrant behavior to one another and the rest of the world in general. No one, not one can show proof that their PERSONAL beliefs are universal truth. That is the whole point of my question. Personal belief and fact are two separate paradigms and should be treated as such. For example: is it right of me to expect my concept of God to be accepted by other people merely because I believe? No. We are ALL entitled to our beliefs as long as we do no harm, and in point of fact there is a minimum basic standard of respect that needs to be adhered to..............by everyone! To one and all, thanks for your answers, aaaand remember always question, that's the only way we get to the "truth".

Answer 1

There is no tangible evidence that will hold up to scientific analysis, and highly unlikely there ever will be. Spirituality is a personal choice, just like the food you eat. I surely do not need evidence I like pizza...I just do. Science has advanced our society in ways that are truly amazing, but it cannot analyze a personal preference. Religion is a personal preference based on belief only, not fact. I'm sure many will argue that, but it's the way it is. Doesn't make it wrong, but if you're going to believe in a higher power, it is purely because you want to, not because of the "proof" of its existence.

Answer 2

You will never prove that God exists, if that's what you're after. However, there are some bits of evidence that are often ignored because they are difficult to explain away.

Biblical prophecies and miracles can both be externally confirmed. Biblical prophecies are there for all to see. Jesus and those who followed him did miracles that had never been done before. Miracles continue to happen today; you may not hear about them if you are not in contact with many Christians who believe that miracles still occur today. But they occur, probably more often than you would think. I personally know a girl who was healed of a tachycardial condition, after doctors said that there was nothing further that they could do for her. Someone prayed for her, and she was healed instantly.

Answer 3

You asked... Yes I have it copied It's too long to type in new every time someone asks this question.. But it is strong scientific evidence that can stand under analysis.... Jim

Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods
of scientific
investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

"Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community
became very
excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey
as scientific
proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance
natural
processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a
mixture of
methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture
through an
electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment,
the products
were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the
individual links
of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in
our bodies,
newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now
proved life came
from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino
acids under
these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was
never
formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are
normal everyday
chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known
process that
has ever converted amino acids into a life form.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino
acids in
those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Then
I realized
that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of
the subject
of chirality. Chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from
chemicals.

Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements
and similar
properties, they can still have different structures. When two
molecules appear
identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of
each other,
those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands
illustrate
chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they
are only
mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this
reason, chirality
can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each
individual molecule
is called an optical isomer.

When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having
chirality,
there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well
as the
right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a
random chance
process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of
the two
optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that
only a few
scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality
was missing
in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to
a
catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural
processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of
amino acids
and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or
left-handed optical
isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be
synthesized in
the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA
molecule is made
up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides,
and these
nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer.
The "L"
isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist
in natural
DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed
these proteins
and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the
components
would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what
we see in
natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural
process create
proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with
billions of
"R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of
design? Even if
there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create
one isomer.
If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it
would work.
If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever
formed? Even if
there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined
which
process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance
natural process?
The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this
kind of control
is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide
molecules come
together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms
the double
helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each
component
contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA
the spiral
shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the
wrong
chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would
not
function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed
like a train
on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of
molecules
within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration
all at the
same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be
formed with
chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides
to come
together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the
same
chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one
product with
chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite
chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma.
According to
evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods
of time.
However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by
natural science
in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes
cannot explain
everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

Answer 4

You are beating a dead horse. One can never prove a "belief". That's why when the human race does anything real, like sending people to the moon, they rely on math and science and not faith to get the job done.

We can pray for an end to cancer all we want. But some scientist will have to figure out the details based on the continuum of ever increasing knowledge through scientific study and experiment.

Answer 5

Look, proof only exists in pure mathematics, so get over the whole proof thing. What you mean is: is there any genuine experiential evidence for the claims believers make? Some yes, some no. Some doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and some does. Those who subject their beliefs to scrutiny and maintain them in some form usually become pagans or Deists or Taoists or Unitarians or something.

Answer 6

Well my nephew was born with cancer of the liver,they tried to remove the cancer but was unable to remove all of it so therefore he still had the cancer.He was very sick and weak....I happened to be baby sitting for him one night and I took him to church,,he was really sick....I took him to the front of the church,an told them what was happening to my little nephew..Anyway they laid the baby on the alter and the man of God prayed over him and anointed him with oil...all the people around the alter was holding hands and we began to pray,In the mist of the prayer it felt as though a layer of something above us and we all felt a calmness and it felt so wonderful...I took him home then and thats all I did ...anyway he is almost 30 years old now and he is still cancer free and the doctors said they did not know what happened the cancer just left,even the doctors said it was a miracle....Thats not a personal belief,its not something I made up all I can tell you is the proof his his life,he is well and never been sick a day in his life....My nephew is not a religous person but he said he remembers something like a touch or something and he says he remembers that he was healed....

Answer 7

Archaeology proves the bible. All artifacts uncovered to date, support the new and old testament scriptures. All ancient manuscripts uncovered prove the accuracy and legitimacy of the scriptures. The prophetic books of the bible are still 100% accurate to this day. God is not going to come to your home and shake your hand and say Hello. There is plenty of proof. No more is needed. You make predictions today, about things 2000 years in the future and see how accurate your predictions are.
God gives us the books of prophecy as proof to unbelievers.
Prove them wrong if you can. I would be very interested in your attempt to do this. Keep me posted.... God Bless You

Answer 8

Yes, found in Antarctic ice; Mastodon frozen with a mouth full of food, i.e. very fast death, along side modern elephant bones. Also found in High lands if England a valley in the mountains with 60 plus skeletons of modern humans, fossilized fish, modern shell fish skeletons. ALL of these things radiometric dated 4000 years old by multiple tests.

This information was discarded because it wouldn't fit the evolutionary plan of the "Very Old Earth".

It's on the web but not in the textbooks.

Here are a few news stories that you may never see in the mainstream.

Answer 9

No it can't be done....nor should it be.
If religion were a matter of proof rather than faith, it wouldn't be religion; it would be science. Not everything that is good in the world needs physical or scientific proof.
Can you prove that any piece of art is beautiful?
Can you prove that any song or piece of music is good?
Can you prove that soda A actually tastes better to soda B?


Everyone needs to get over this thing about proving religion as valid. Religion is valid if it gives people comfort and guidance.

This message brought to you by your friendly neighborhood......

PAGAN

Answer 10

Demanding physical proof of a spiritual belief is a misunderstanding of both the physical and the spiritual.

The best you can do is ask them what makes them believe and then assess that. If they only believe because someone told them to believe that's pretty lame. If they have an actual reason that would be different.

love and blessings Don