Is there any unequivocal evidence for God?

Question

Can anyone prove that he exists?

To whomever put in the existence of love thing. Love is a chemical reaction in the brain resulting from thousands of years of evolution. I cannot prove it to you because I lack a chemistry lab etc. but it has been proven.

Surprising, most of the theists here just say that I should believe and don't even try an ontological argument, which actually could be quite persuasive. How unfortunate.

You make a good argument, but concluding that God must have set everything in motion is picking one conclusion out of many. Even then it is certainly not a conclusion for a theistic God, only deistic. Also if God created everything, then I can use your own logic against you and ask how was God created.

Also it has been proven many times that there are chemcial reactions in the brain/hormones/eletrical impulses along with other concepts which I do not understand because I never studied chemistry. Furthermore the similar chemical reactions occur in animals to encourage them to mate/reproduce et cetera and they obviously won't be the same in humans because we are a different class/genus/phylum/species/other orders of animals that I don't remember.

Whilst you claim that God can be a creator under these circumstances, you dismiss the fact that God would need to be created as well. While not "technically" intrinsic to the question, it is pertinent to the existence of a God. Furthermore, you are right in that I am no expert in the field of biochemistry, and was merely reporting facts previously discovered. However, simply because I am unaware of the specifics on the issue, does not signify that the issues holds no water, for example simply because I am not familiar with the metrical patterns of ancient Parthian poetry does not mean they do not exist. I have never and will never make the claim that the extent of my knowledge is the extent of human knowledge. Finally, you apply the existence of a deity to such facts as those unknown by humans. If this approach was taken towards all unknowns the furthering of knowledge would be hindered immensely.

Also I have no idea why an elderly person would pick flowers for his wife. You would have to ask him, although I would attribute it to the repetitive nature of human tendencies.

Answer 1

Here is one of the many arguments for the existence of God: the cosmological argument. The argument is simply this: The cosmos is here and must be explained as to how it got here. This argument is using the law of cause and effect, which states: Every effect must have a preceding and adequate cause. What does it mean by adequate? Well, the building didn’t collapse because a mosquito landed on it. The tsunami didn’t hit because someone threw a pebble into the ocean.

Now, when it comes to explaining the existence of the universe, you only get three possibilities: (1) the universe is eternal (it has always been here), (2) the universe created itself, or (3) something created the universe. There is no other possibility except to claim that the universe is simply an illusion and does not exist—but I don’t think you would buy that. So let’s examine these three possibilities to see which is the most reasonable.

First, is the universe eternal? Absolutely not. We know this is true because of the universally recognized second law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy decay or entropy).

This law states that everything goes downhill from order to disorder, more usable energy to less. This law is the reason why heat flows from hot to cold and why this building will fall apart if it is not kept up with. If someone doesn’t believe in the second law of thermodynamics, just challenge them to live forever; even with this awesome machinery we have in our bodies, you will eventually wear out and die.

We can see that the universe is running down and wearing out; the stars are burning up, the radioactive atoms are decaying, etc. As Psalm 102:26 says, the heavens “will wear out like a garment.” Given enough time, the universe will experience what some call a “heat death” where there is maximum entropy; every part of the universe will be the same temperature, and no further work will be possible (speaking of energy transfer); all energy will be evenly distributed.

Eternal things obviously do not wear out because they would have had an infinite amount of time to come to their end. Since you cannot have an end without a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning. Evolutionary astronomer Dr. Robert Jastrow said, “Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning.” And everything that has a beginning has a cause. This building had a beginning, you had a beginning, therefore there must have been a preceding and adequate cause.

The evolutionists know this and so they came up with the “big bang” theory from that “cosmic egg” (the universe exploded into existence). But there is still a major problem—you have to explain where that “cosmic egg” came from. As it has been said, “There must be a cosmic chicken.”

Some scientists like Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov proposed the oscillating universe theory to avoid a beginning. This theory states that the universe acts like a yo-yo; it explodes and then gravity pulls it back in, and then the process repeats itself over and over. But the second law of Thermodynamics still refutes that idea, since each cycle would exhaust more and more usable energy. The universe is not eternal!

Ok, that brings us to the second possibility: Did the universe create itself? I think Hebrews 3:4 answers that pretty well, “...every house is built by someone...”

Let’s say I walk into my livingroom and see a crayon drawing of our family on the wall. When I ask my daughter where it came from, will I accept her answer of, “It just appeared there; it came from nothing”? Her grandparents might, but I won’t.

It is pretty clear that something cannot bring itself into existence. As R.C. Sproul has said, “It is impossible for something to create itself. The concept of self-creation is a contradiction in terms, a nonsense statement . . . It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power.” As it has been said, “Nothing scratched its head one day and decided to become something.” I’m sorry to have to drop this bombshell on you, but from nothing, comes nothing.

Besides, the First Law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy conservation) argues against it. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system (without a God, this Universe would have to be a closed system) the amount of energy present in that system is constant (it cannot be created or destroyed), it can only be converted from one form to another. So, if the Universe initially contained no energy, and then it spontaneously generated all of the energy in the Universe now, the First Law would be violated. Without intervention from an outside force, the amount of energy in the Universe would have remained constant and unchanged at zero.

And now the third possibility: Did something create the universe? If the universe is not eternal and could not have created itself, then the only remaining alternative is that the universe was created by something or Someone. This would have to be a transcendent, eternal, self-existing being. I can find only one satisfactory explanation to our conundrum, and that is found in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Someone may argue, “If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause; who created God?” The answer is, everything that has a beginning has a cause; God, unlike the universe, did not have a beginning. Time is linked to matter and space (as we can see from Einstein’s general relativity). If God created the universe, then He created time along with matter and space. If God created time, then He is outside of time and doesn’t need a beginning.

What is more absurd, to believe that God Created everything out of nothing or that nothing turned itself into everything? The fact is, we live in a Universe that is an effect. There must be a preceding and adequate cause for it. The only thing that makes sense is a Creator who is more powerful than anything we can imagine.

Answer 2

What constitutes evidence? Are we talking about evidence of creation or evidence of existence? Since the God of the abrahamic religions is said to exist outside of space-time the answer to both questions is NO. How can we possibly prove that something does or does not exist IN space-time when it is said to exist outside space-time. That is impossible.
However, like pink ferries and unicorns we can say that the proposition is highly unlikely.

Answer 3

Yes there is, but here is the rub. The Judeo Christian's are wrong, the Islamics are wrong, the Jews are wrong, the buddists are wrong. The one true being is the cosmic muffin-he puts packages of blueberry muffin mix on the shelves in the store to prove he exists. the stores say nothing because the appearance of salable muffin mixes on the shelves are pure profit. However, radio carbon dating of the blueberries show that they are 6000 years old. Now--prove this one wrong lol.

Answer 4

When people say evidence, they usually mean *physical* evidence, and, as far as I know, there is none that God exists. I imagine if there was, we would most certainly know about it - talk about a huge and powerful mystery solved!

Many people believe in God and other intangible things without physical evidence - no physical evidence doesn't mean things don't exist - it just takes *faith.*.

Answer 5

Can you prove to a blind man that there is color? Can you prove the existence of love? Can you even prove to me that science exists? The only proof that God exists would not be what most would call "hard" scientific fact, but can only be proved by ontological means (Descartes did a fine job of developing this method). Even within the "science" of ontology, one must operate under certain assumptions. Chief among these assumptions would be the Law of Non-contradiction. Many post-modernists have taken up rejecting this law for the very purpose of clinging to the belief that there is no God or gods.

The quickest way of stating the "proof" of God is thus: every event must be caused; some objects cause actions and may be acted upon, or may cause and are caused; other objects are only acted upon, or are caused; therefore, there must be some object that only causes, but cannot be caused. Look at it in terms of inertia, if you will. An item at rest will remain at rest unless it is acted upon. The universe is in constant motion; not at rest. Something must have set it in motion.

(This line of reasoning is not my own, but I adapted it from the medieval philosopher Maimonides.)

EDIT: When was love proved to exist in a lab setting? Who made this breakthrough and why did it not make it into the medical or scientific journals? Yes, there are chemical reactions associated with love, but the very similar chemical reactions happen in animals that do not "love". Our thoughts and emotions cannot be boiled down simply to chemistry. A more precise statement would be that love is merely electrical impulses. Some scientists say that our brains' impulses are not electricity, but sound with electricity as a byproduct; but I have not seen enough evidence to buy into this theory.

EDIT 2: In answer to the question, What created God?, you do not follow my logic. You miss the definition of God. God is Creator; not created. By very definition, God was not created. A god that was created is not the God we are discussing. The prophets of Israel and Judah pointed out that the gods of the various pantheons are created, while the God of Israel creates. To speak of a God that could have been created is to oversimplify the issue to sophomoric lows.

Please, do not submit any further unsubstantiated "scientific" evidence. If you do not understand biochemistry, do not submit it as evidence. The chemical reaction to which you allude is a combination of high levels of testosterone (the "lust" chemical), norepinepherine (causing the sweaty palms and increased heart rate), and a rush of phenylethylamine and dopamine (which both, more or less, get you "high"). This reaction explains lust and/or infatuation. It does not explain how an elderly man feels about his wife fifty years after these chemicals kicked in when he kissed her for the first time. It does not explain why he keeps kissing her in the absence of these reactions, why he would still lay down his life for her even though the sexual aspect of the relationship has all but disappeared, or why he will pick wildflowers for her for no special occasion. These chemicals are not love.

It seems the confusion you suffer is due to the fact that our definitions of God and love differ. And thus we are relegated not to a debate on the existence of God or the ability of science to prove that existence, but to semantics.

EDIT 3: Again, we are back to semantics. You claim it is a "fact that God would need to be created as well", but you contradict yourself. You are composing in English. If you mean to speak of a god that was created, you must not capitalize the "g". Please refer to Webster's Third International Dictionary. God (capitalized, denoting a proper noun) is defined as: "a(1) the holy, infinite, and eternal spiritual reality presented in the Bible as the creator...", "a(2) the eternal, invisible, arbitrarily omnipotent Lord of the worlds and final judge of all men presented in the Koran...", "b(1) the unchangeably perfect Being that is the first and final cause of the universe.", the definitions go on, each using the words "infinite" or "eternal". If you are speaking of a created being, you should not capitalize the word. I know this may seem arbitrary, but we must be sure we are comparing apples to apples; not apples to cheeseburgers.

If you are not proficient in language, science, or philosophy, and therefore unable to understand the subject or evidences in question, it would behoove you to bow out. My colleague, the Questioner, seems to have dealt out a heaping helping of the "evidence" you crave.

But as a former atheist, I can see your reluctance to admit any evidence that defies your preconceived notion or that challenges your sovereignty over your world. Before I fell in love, I could have reduced sexual love to chemistry as well. Before my children were born, I could have accepted that a parent's love was just some evolutionary trait to preserve the species. But I fell in love. I got married. I had kids. I had to rearrange my ways of thinking and accept that there are areas of my life where I cannot be a scientist. I saw what Lao-tzu meant when he wrote "the more you know, the less you understand". Later, when I experienced my God in a very personal manner, I again had to rearrange my logic. I work in ultraviolet technology. I have learned that there are things we can't see that can have a profound impact on our lives. I apologize for my condescension, but you seem to have experience so little. I pray that you will withhold judgment in such important matters until you gain more experience. It's good that you question things, but always remember to question science as well. Science changes daily. Facts are changeable; truth is eternal.

Read the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and apply them to your life. Call it a scientific experiment. Live the way that Jesus taught. See how it changes your life and the lives of those around you, then analyze how a Palestinian Jew who was born over 2000 years ago could have been so right about how to live, but so wrong about what life is.

Answer 6

There 's no faith with unequivocal proof, this the conundrum. Do I believe when all around me say: "Prove it!" Do I remain cool and say I do not believe even though my heart tells me otherwise? No, better play it cool...

Answer 7

No one can prove it. No one will ever be able to prove. Want to know why?

Because there are no such things as gods. End of story.

Answer 8

The proof is in our sky. The sun and the moon appear to be the same size in our sky even though one is much bigger and farther away. Yes it is an optical illusion, but also an awesome example of the LORD'S majesty. Praise the LORD.

Answer 9

Can I prove to you...no, no one can prove that to another.

do you have an unequivocal evidence for the existance of love? Same difference...only if you experience it do you really know if it exists.

~ Eric Putkonen

Answer 10

well.....depends on who and where and why....
some people say yes,some no.....evidence is tricky word
personal experience is enough for some,the bible for some,religion for others...faith is not seeing but believing,and each person has to find this God on his/her own...some do while others don't....it's a personal journey,and i hope ya find HIM