Is God a logical concept or a "real" entity?

Question

to prove a logical concept is valid, it requires a logical proof.
to prove a real entity exists, it requires evidence.

Where's the evidence?

Answer 1

Neither my dear.

Answer 2

Plenty of evidence, all around you and even inside you.

Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, Dr. George Smoot of the University of California at Berkeley, and Frederic B. Burnham, a renown science historian, all took part in a series of mathematical computations and scientific analyses to assess the probability of life at random, particularly through the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) Satellite in April 1992 as an experiment validating the theoretical occurrence of the "Big Bang."

Burnham summed it up by saying, "[The idea that God created the universe is] "a more
respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last
hundred years."

Albert Einstein, who initially discovered that the universe was expanding and decelerating (which pointed to a "big bang" creation event) came to accept the idea of a beginner, or "superior reasoning power"(3), but did not accept the idea of a personal God, such as the God of the Bible.

The physical properties of the universe are also a testament to a Designer. When we examine the universe, we see not a random conglomeration, but a very carefully crafted design.

The idea of the entirely random occurrence of the Big Bang spawning the organization and diversity of life throughout the universe, including life on planet earth, has been compared to the logic that an explosion in a printshop could result in the formation of a large dictionary.

But if you want some more "logic", let's do some math. You like math right? Let's see if you can keep up.

Today, we have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not. If we throw five numbered cubes up in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can get: 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations. Thus, the probability of obtaining any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086. This probability diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes. If we increase them by one, the number of combinations becomes 1x2x3x4x5x6=720, and the probability of getting any combination diminishes to 1/720, 0.0014. Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50, or
0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 209 [that's FIFTY zeroes after the decimal]

Now, probability laws also preclude Darwinian Evolution. His famous statement that "life began as a 'simple' cell" is laughable. As recently as 50 years ago, Wells, Huxley, and Wells wrote in their classic textbook that "nothing can be seen inside the nucleus but clear fluid." We know now that the cell, is an extremely complex unit, with billions of nucleotides in the gene material inside the nucleus, and millions of biochemical reactions. The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not talking about 84 nucleotides (cubes); we are talking about billions of nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.

Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The probability laws preclude this as an utter impossibility. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.

A fitting quote here is that of Professor Edwin Conklin; he stated: "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory."

Look, I could go on and on and hit you with all the math that has been done, and the empirical scientific research that continues to astound hard-core "evolutionists" and disprove their ideology; but what's the point? You're going to believe what you're going to believe. If you want to believe you just sprang forth from billions and billions of years of random events, no purpose whatsoever, then hey that's your existence. But don't say there isn't any evidence to show you or give you a glimmer of understanding that God, a Creator, exists; you truly are blind if you can't see that when you take a look at the organization and diversity in nature. If you think randomness resulted in all that, wow ... I don't think you'd know truth if it bit you in the face.

Answer 3

Understand this, and you will never have to wonder again.

Many people are asking for proof of God. Sometimes they ask for evidence, and sometimes they ask for proof.

If evidence is desired,
all they have to do is pick up a Bible Dictionary or Encyclopedia and see that there is a Google search worth of evidence. AS in: Way too much information to read in one or ten sittings. The amount of evidence of God is tremendous, and Testimonial Evidence does not even have to be looked at until all the historical and archaeological evidence is exhausted.

So those who ask for evidence are revealing themselves to be lazy studiers and lazy thinkers. They do not want to approach the subject logically. I think that it is because they have already made up their minds. They do not gather the evidence and deduce the evidence with axiomatic
and systematic intellectual honesty. They really don't want to.

So:

This has been my experience. I also see that the lack of evidence that many claim as being the truth is explained in the Bible.

God did not give many people the proof.

He only gives the proof to those who trust Him.
The only one's who He wants are going to be able to trust Him.

It is impossible to know God unless He wants you.
He does not want everybody.

So God holds onto the proof.
He only gives the proof to those who He wants.

It is against human nature to want to know God.
God will give the proof to those He wants to give the proof to.

The proof of God is given through His Spirit.
He will not give His Spirit to those He does not want.

So those people who claim that there is no proof of God are saying that THEY do not have any proof. It does not mean that there is no proof, they just don't have the proof.

If they say that they don't have the proof, they are saying the truth. God didn't give to them the proof.

Esoteric is a good word to describe the situation I am talking about. Jesus uses esoteric phrases ( as in the reason why he spoke in parables ) , in order to throw off those who might hear that God didn't want.

All this means that God does not include most people in the world in His plan for salvation.

From the Bible, this describes the meaning of the words of Jesus when he said, " Many are called, but few are chosen."

The call of salvation went to all who heard it. But only a remnant were given the ability to respond to the message.

God has long been the God who saved a remnant of the people - even the Jews.

So you will not get the proof of God except through the Spirit. If you do not get the proof of God through the Spirit, you will only get the proof after you die.

If you do not get the truth before you die- God did not want you.

Answer 4

You will need to defend this rather too neat division, since most current philosophers --especially those following Willard Quine-- are apt do deny that it is possible to make such a nice and neat distinction between statements said to be "a priori" and those said to be "a posteriori."

The crucial distinction nowadays is between that which is necessary and that which is not necessary: the necessary vs. the contingent. God is usually now held to be necessary, and a real entity.

HTH

Charles

Answer 5

God is a concept that is often accepted to be true for illogical reasons because people are desperate for something to believe in. There's no evidence or proof, unless you count faith, old story books, vague anecdotes and psychotic episodes.

Answer 6

Not possible for me to explain here but with love and goodwill I suggest you to have a basic spiritual free seven days course from any of the centers of BRAHMAKUMARIS or go to www.brahmakumaris.com

Answer 7

Is Harvey, the invisible rabbit, a good Term to use instead of GOD?

Answer 8

not evident yet.