English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

When you ask for proof of God's existence, and you want quantifiable testable evidence, don't you realize that this is a ridiculous request?

We believe in God, we believe he is an all powerful being. We believe he is super-natural, that is he exist outside of natural laws. No one that believes in God thinks there is proof of God, the only proof of God that we have is that in our hearts and mind we know he exist...and it is a good feeling. What you are asking for us to prove is impossible for humans to do. No human has the ability, despite how much knowledge they have, we just do not have the ability. The closest proof we have is personal revelation, which is non testable, but it is faith.

Let me ask you to prove something. I will give you a stick, a rock, and a magnifying glass. Using these objects, prove to me that quarks exist. I want evidence that will show me an actual quark.

2007-11-03 04:52:36 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

If no one can prove that quarks exist using the above method. Does that mean they do not exist?

What if a group of scientist say they have proved that quarks exist. Should only those that have the knowledge and ability to read and understand their research believe that quarks exist? If you don't understand how they proved it, you are just believing it on faith that they know what they are talking about. Believing in God is not all that different.

2007-11-03 04:55:47 · update #1

Moiraes Fate: Where am I telling you to believe in God? It is atheist that ask for proof from us.

2007-11-03 04:58:09 · update #2

RrN91: tell me how YOU prove quarks exist? Or do you just take what other scientist have done on faith that they know what they are doing? If you have all the knowledge to understand their research, then you should be able to prove it to yourself. Otherwise, you are taking it on faith alone, like it or not.

2007-11-03 04:59:56 · update #3

Ray J: Dodging the question only displays that you have no good argument to use.

2007-11-03 05:01:21 · update #4

Jiraiya: Yes I know there are ways to prove quarks exist. But not with a stick, a rock, and a magnifying glass. It is an analogy. Think of God as being the quark and all of our current knowledge, technology, and thinking ability...and that is the stick, the rock, and the magnifying glass. It is an impossible task, but that doesn't mean that the object trying to be proved is impossible.

2007-11-03 05:06:27 · update #5

lilith: the point is you have no idea or any way to test that yourself. So you are still taking it on faith from those that do understand.

2007-11-03 05:08:31 · update #6

dances_with_unicorns: I never use the plural version of atheist. Why? Because it is like kryptonite to some atheist. They see that and completely short circuit and can't think straight. It is hilarious to watch. I HAVE FOUND YOUR WEAKNESS ATHEIST!!!!!

2007-11-03 05:10:32 · update #7

Mr Obvious: Where did I claim that my belief in God is superior to others that believe in other Gods? I have never in any of my questions made any such claim...so no one should have any idea what my thoughts are...but go ahead and assume, it does not matter.

And how do you know the universe would be different with an interventionist God? Is there a rule book that describes how Gods must act and what kind of universe they can create based on their behavior? Do you deny that there are many medical mysteries that doctors or scientist have no idea how a person was healed?

2007-11-03 05:20:37 · update #8

Jiraiya: Nice edit...but what gives you the idea that I have no idea what protons and neutrons are? Because I believe in God? Isn't that rather close minded of you? I'm not here to prove any scientific knowledge I have, that is the atheist job. Even though it is apparent to me that most have no knowledge of science, math, or logic. They just like to talk like they do. It is a common element in todays society. Everyone speaks like they are intelligent, but when it gets down to actually applying that knowledge they can't. It started at the top and has filtered down throughout society. Having a title does not imply knowledge anymore.

2007-11-03 05:26:21 · update #9

Bajingo: Your viewpoint is cool with me. You admit fully that a personal experience is all the proof you would need...nothing wrong with that.

And your advark example, that doesn't work really. Because you have narrowed it down to 37 miles above my head....and that is possible to test with our knowledge and abilities. If you had said that there is a 3-headed advark that is outside of natural law, and there is no way of detecting him any way inside the natural realm...well then yes...I think it is possible. I think there is more that is possible than impossible, but that is just my opinion.

2007-11-03 05:30:30 · update #10

Bajingo, how did Lilith answer? She gave the scientific explaination of how quarks are known.

I'm convinced most of you don't know how to relate to an analogy. Maybe that is why you are atheist since a lot of religious teachings use analogies.

2007-11-03 10:13:32 · update #11

Wait, I have to add a quote from liliths source. Before the paragraph she pasted, it also says this:

"A question you might well ask! If we cannot separate them out, how do we know they are there? The answer is simply that all our calculations depend on their existence and give the right answers for the experiments."

2007-11-03 10:15:35 · update #12

oops...hit submit to quick. Anyway, this question has nothing to do with quarks existing, or God existing....I really don't think any one got that. If anyone is still checking out this question, please tell me what you think this question is about.

2007-11-03 10:18:21 · update #13

16 answers

Amen~ i am a Chrsitian BTW, actually that is subjective. I am a believer of God and His Son, and treasure my personal relationship with Him~

2007-11-03 04:56:46 · answer #1 · answered by Stylegirl 3 · 0 5

Why are you putting so much effort into this question?

A "quark" is one of two things A. an elementary particle or B. a soft creamy acid-cured cheese of central Europe made from whole milk. I'm assuming you're talking about the particle but either way, if it doesn't exist, it's not going to change the way either of us live. I will still be an atheist, believe it or not. You will still be a theist. Elementary particle or not.

A god, on the other hand, if you can prove that A GOD exists and that he's omnipresent, Lords over all of the angles and demons and beings on earth, will someday judge the souls of man, is the commander of the heavenly hosts, that he can condemn you to hell or reward you with heaven, that he created the earth and everything in it, that he is all knowing, that his word is scripture, that there is everlasting life, that he is sovereign and that what he says goes... well... that would change the way EVERYONE lives and the way EVERYONE views the life around us. Me and you both.

So it's not apples to apples.

It's more like apples to preforming elephants.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

2007-11-03 12:58:41 · answer #2 · answered by greenpin 1 · 1 0

As an atheist/agnostic, 'quark' is just a word to me. I have no opinion on it because I have no knowledge of it.

You think all atheists are the same?

I don't believe in deities because no deity is revealed to me. I have no evidence, therefore I don't believe. I don't ask you to prove them either.

You can't prove there isn't a giant, invisible, spiny three-headed aardvark floating 37 miles above your head right now.

What? You mean you don't believe me?

Does that make you an aaadvarkist??

UPDATE:

Oh, I just read all your edits. You aren't looking for answer are you, you are just looking to prove your (dreadfully flawed) analogy by hopping around.

Ho hum.

Lilith just handed your analogy's a55 to it on a plate. At least be gracious enough to concede when she quite obviously answered your question fully.

Edit:

"You admit fully that a personal experience is all the proof you would need...nothing wrong with that. "

Absolute tosh. I never admitted anything of the sort. I said I have no opinion on it as I haven't studied it. A belief is an active thing.

I also do not question that a deity is possible. I just don't believe something unless I have evidence for it. So therefore I do not believe in deities.

Going along with your triteness, let us say then, the aardvark with three heads is omnipotent and exists everywhere at once. OK?

Does it now follow that you believe it? That you have faith in it? Or are you an aaardvarkist?

2007-11-03 12:06:04 · answer #3 · answered by Bajingo 6 · 2 0

The inability to prove the existence of quarks with a lens and stick is merely a technological handicap. If you wanted to, you could always visit a facility that has the necessary technology.

Also sometimes it is possible to prove the existence of something invisible by studying it's effects. If we see the shadow of a person cast on a wall we can be fairly certain that there is a person nearby even if cannot see the actual person. If a star wobble we can fairly certain that there is a planet orbiting the star even if we cannot see the planet.

No amount of technology or shadows, however, point to the existence of a God.

Besides, if Gods wants us to believe in him, if he wants us to love and fear him, then don't you think he would make his existence a little more apparent?

2007-11-03 12:08:58 · answer #4 · answered by Ben 7 · 1 0

"No one that believes in God thinks there is proof of God, the only proof of God that we have is that in our hearts and mind we know he exist...and it is a good feeling."

And your "proof" is just as good as the "proof" people have of Allah, of Vishnu, of Xenu from Scientology, of Zeus of ........

See what I am getting at? You just admitted to be on equal footing with every other religion in the world. There is no reason why I should believe you over anyone else. None at all.

Also, your God is an interventionist God. It answers prayer and influences other events. Such a God, if it existed WOULD BE detectable and it WOULD NOT BE impossible to find real evidence for it. You know why? Because the universe of an interventionist God would be a very different place than the universe with no God. The universe we are in is exactly what we would expect if no God existed. So either your God doesn't exist, or is acting like it doesn't.

2007-11-03 12:09:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I dont think a scientist uses a stick , a rock and a magnifying glass to prove quarks exist... and a scientist uses the scientific method to prove his theories. Sure, most layman dont understand, but that does not disprove his theory. However, NO ONE can prove that god exists or that Jesus was the son of God. We use logic and reason to come to the conclusion that your theory, that there is a god, is wrong, since christians can not show any proof.

2007-11-03 12:01:52 · answer #6 · answered by tyler durden 3 · 4 0

Exactly, what you don't understand is that we KNOW that you can't prove it, we expect that kind of answer from you. Believing in something doesn't make it real, if I had genuine belief that pigs were capable of flying, would that make it true?
Your answer that god exists outside natural laws is just a cheap convenient excuse for not being able to ascertain his/her/it existence or even at least suggest the slight possibility of his existence.

And there are ways of proving quarks exist.


lilith- Do you really expect him to understand that? He's probably not even aware of what protons and neutrons are.

2007-11-03 12:00:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

"...when we bounce electrons off of protons and neutrons, the pattern of scattering angles observed is characteristic of point-like spin-1/2 scatters. The relative rates for electron versus neutrino scattering is that predicted from the quark electric charges. The process of electron-positron annihilation to quark pairs gives similar characteristic predictions, all these are also confirmed experimentally. The accumulation of many such results, where experiments match predictions based on quarks, convinces us that quarks are real."

2007-11-03 12:03:29 · answer #8 · answered by lilith 7 · 4 0

The devil's biggest trick is to make people believe that God doesn't exist! It's truly sad people don't believe; to me it's like not believing in my own self If I didn't believe in my Lord. I wouldn't see what the meaning of life was; which is Love. I wouldn't want to go on; to believe I couldn't see my family, kids, and friends again. i might just go robbing banks and stuff!!

2007-11-03 12:15:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

This is another rewording of "prove to me that God doesn't exist."

It's a logical fallacy the asker hasn't figured out yet.

I can't prove that leprechauns don't exist...do you believe in them too????

Believing in BS doesn't make it real....

2007-11-03 12:00:01 · answer #10 · answered by Adam G 6 · 4 0

If atheists need a sign to be born in the spirit and become believers, then we as Christians need to pray that each and everyone of them receives their sign.

Colossians 3:15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.

2007-11-03 12:11:21 · answer #11 · answered by just a man 4 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers