Is it possible to prove the existance of a god without citing a religious text?

Question

Citing religious texts results in circular logic.

Example: The Bible says that God is real and God inspired the Bible.
Example II: The Quran says that god is real and god inspired the Quran.

This is circular logic and is therefore flawed.

I am looking for proof of any god.

Please no jargon about how I am an evil atheist, no attacks on evolution or science as I didn't mention evolution or science and please no rambling emotional testimonies about how you felt god as your feelings are not hard proof of anything.

Thank you

Last time I asked this question, I mostly received rambling emotional testimonies. Your emotions and a coincidence are not hard proof of anything. Please, I am looking for hard proof of the existence of a god without reference to religious texts.

It's a sad state of affairs when the most intelligent answer I recieve is "*crickets churping*".

Saying that our existence is enough proof of the existence of god is also not hard proof.

I await your responses.

Answer 1

There are many different kinds of evidence. Empirical evidence, circumstantial evidence, eyewitness testimony, etc.

Generally when uneducated (which seems to be more politically correct than the word ignorant) people discuss evidence they assume that Empirical Evidence is the only kind of evidence and that the Existence of God should be proven using the scientific method. This cannot be done.

The scientific method demands repeatable results. when using the scientific method on the behavior of beings only Probabilities can be predicted. There is no Empirical Evidence that can be used in regards the behavior of any specific or group of beings, animals, people, etc. Only probabilities.

Because of this FACT Courts of Law are used to determine FACTS about beings, people, etc. Did a dog bite a person? Does a person exist?

Evidence in the testimony of witnesses, technical experts, etc is presented and a conclusion is reached based on the preponderance of evidence. (Civil Court, where things like this are decided)

Since eye witness testimony is allowed in Court and since there are thousands, if not millions, of people alive today who can testify to the existence of God we have a preponderance of direct evidence for the existence of God.

The only argument against this is that many people believe God is a "myth" with no Empirical Evidence available.

It is easy to see which would win in a Court case.

PS: Look up Chop Logic and then compare what are called the logical arguments for and against the existence of God. You will see that all of them demand ignoring facts and/or common procedures for the establishment of facts.

Answer 2

Look at the nature around you. Did the trees evolve? Did the animals who have instinct, just get it from themselves? Look at the water cycles of the earth. Look at little kittens and puppies and babies. Our universe. Look how it all works together. If all this happened from evolution here on the earth, why hasn't it happened in other places in the galaxy? Why is earth the only planet that has atmosphere, water, and trees, animals, insects?
The New York Times reports: “The search for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe . . . began 25 years ago . . . The awesome task, which involves scanning hundreds of billions of stars, has so far yielded no clear evidence that life exists beyond Earth.”—July 2, 1984, p. A1. That was in 1984 and they still haven't found another planet like earth.
Our bodies are unique in the universe. Take our brains for example - Scientist Carl Sagan states that the human brain could hold information that “would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world’s largest libraries.” (Cosmos, 1980, p. 278) Regarding the capacity of the human brain’s “filing system,” biochemist Isaac Asimov wrote that it is “perfectly capable of handling any load of learning and memory which the human being is likely to put upon it—and a billion times more than that quantity, too.”—The New York Times Magazine, October 9, 1966, p. 146.
Why was the human brain endowed with such a capacity if it was not to be used? Is it not reasonable that humans, with the capacity for endless learning, were actually designed to live forever?
Hope I have given you some things to think about.

Answer 3

There is no hard proof that God exists. I myself am ignostic meaning I am not religious but I don't hate religion as an athiest by definition would. Now religion was created, as was the idea of god, to explain the unexplainable, who are we? why are we here? Now because there is no hard proof of god existing, and it is far more outrageous to believe than say a scientific theory, I find it meaningless to dedicate my life to something that probably doesn't even exist. Now these are only my opinions so I am sure other people have their's and I also respect them.

I would also like to add after reading some other posts that religion is just a faith, therefore there will never be hard proof of god. Which is a huge reason why religion seems like a waste of time to me. Also, we have not even begun exploring the mass of things to explore in space. We are but one little speck in this huge system that no one knows much about. So honestly, is it plausible to say that god would create this universe, and concentrate so much on humans alone. there is obviously much more to be explored before ANYONE can decide on whether god exists or not

Answer 4

There have been some attempts at logical proofs of the existence of God. Saint Anselm came up with this ontological argument:

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

A criticism of this "proof" is that it only establishes the IDEA of God, and not God him/her/itself (this was Kant's critique of Anselm. However, Anselm was defended by the philosopher GWF Hegel). More on various other ontological arguments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument .

St. Thomas Aquinas came up with a cosmological argument, that can be abbreivated thus:

1. Every being (that exists or ever did exist) is either a dependent being or a self-existent being (meaning it exists "on its own," or it depends on something else -- such as ancestors -- to come into existence)
2. Not every being can be a dependent being.
3. So there exists a self-existent being.

A criticism here is that #2 it is not logically defensible. Perhaps it is true, but it hard to prove. More on the cosmological argument, and its defenses/critiques, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument .

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and these sources will point you to others. The short of it is that people have been trying to do this for thousands of years, and no one has gotten it definitively right -- or at least, right enough to convince others!

Answer 5

Yes.
Well let's see... (unfortunately, my illustration still will probably prove nothing to you, but).
I am in the construction industry. I have worked on homes, retail, and high rise projects. These projects, all start with intelligent humans engineering the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, and all the other systems to achieve the final product.
Yet what I experience at every project, is the oversight, and serious design flaws based upon human error. Their is so much effort that goes into the design of these projects, yet so many of them are screwed up before the groundbreaking.
At my current project, I have had to submit over 20 RFI's (Request for information ) due to conflicts and omissions in the drawings. The result has been that as I have tried to make sense of the poor designs, I have personally caused the architects and engineers to issue no less than 5 plan revisions, some quite major.
Now, what, you may ask is the relevance to proving God's existence without the Bible?
It goes something like this. Upon this earth are multitudes of life forms that all, follow a preset design. Humans for example, have within their design, the power to replicate, fuel themselves, repair themselves, and the extra capacity to create. (Though what we create pales in comparison to us, the ones who are creating).
I just find it impossible to believe that the complexity of the lifeforms here on earth happened by chance, when the intelligent humans we are, have so much difficult in the design and construction of buildings, which will require deliberate maintenance and upkeep for them to be of any value for their relatively short lifespans. Most building of today, is not really done with the expectation of being here forever.
Even if we narrowed it down to just the mechanics of one human hand, it is so much more superbly design than the most advanced machines we have ever created.
There you go, I gave it a shot.
Thanks for playing.

Answer 6

If a person could prove logically the existance of God, somebody would make the proof a doctrine for a new religion. So no, you can't prove God without religious text...

Answer 7

Considering the strong bias you display in your question,
I hardly think you will have ears to really hear what I would like to say to you.

The truth is I have no solid physical,logical proof that could reach the learned. However, if you were to make yourself like a little child and know nothing as you ought, I may be able to better describe the basis of my beliefs.
The wisdom of God is foolishness to those who are perishing.
He chose the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.
I am giving you this answer with all respect and honor toward you and your gifts of reasoning.
You may think I'm a crack-pot...........I am.....

Answer 8

Look at the human form? We are so easily "killable", yet we are the highest form of life on the planet. I believe there must be some form of "higher protection" for us. As far as proof goes, why should God have to prove anything to us? Where would faith come in if God performed daily miracles to prove himself?
I'm not saying that you have to believe but, I would rather believe in God and find in the hereafter that I'm wrong then NOT believe and find in the hereafter that I'm wrong. I hope you do find something to believe in, even if it's only yourself

Answer 9

Rather than supply you with a proof text, I will give a suggestion: instead of 'proving' God, why not prove the Scriptures? Give the biblical commandments an honest try, give them your all, and see what happens. Then and only then will you know once and for all the truth about God.

Answer 10

When you discount people's testimony about what's happened in their lives you are calling them liars.

There is no answer any person of faith can give you that you will believe.

There is no proof. It's called faith. You come by it not by intellect, but from a resolve in your soul. You have instincts and you supress them.

Just feel good in knowing that there is no purpose, there is no reason for being here and after you die none of this will have mattered.

Your caveats on answering your question are pathetic.