Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought

To INC folks, how do you prove God exists?

susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
To INC folks, how do you prove God exists?

I am a liberal protestant, I am sure that God exists and I can prove it.

What about you folks in the INC, how do you prove God exists?
«134

Comments

  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    To INC folks, how do you prove God exists?

    I am a liberal protestant, I am sure that God exists and I can prove it.

    What about you folks in the INC, how do you prove God exists?

    You can read here:
    http://theiglesianicristo.blogspot.ca/2014/12/does-god-exist-strongest-evidence.html
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Please, I need to exchange thoughts with posters here, even not INC folks, for example, atheists, satanists, voodoo-ists, Buddhists, etc, and whatsoever else like zombies, just that they be human beings and not already mindless, like what Pres. Duterte likes to tell us, folks hooked up on shabu.

    You see, if in contributing to this forum, you just tell posters here with a thread or a post, to read a link, then there is no need for in person exchange of thoughts.

    And the whole point of a web forum is in person exchange of thoughts, not something like exchange of bibliographies when you just give links to people to look up.

    Anyway, if you have to give links, also accompany the links individually with at least some 30 words of pr?cis on what each link is about, so that when we look them up we are not entering a blind or even an unwelcome like dirty site, altogether unacceptable from us of investing our time and trouble on.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Whether people agree or not, believe or not, God exists.

    God is manifested in His sacred Holy Scriptures or the Bible as we popularly know it. This is a material object testifying about God, just as other history books testify about the world events in the past. Without these books (the bible and history books), there really is no way for us to know how things came about, how we came to live in this world the way we see it now.

    How is the bible different from any other books that we know now as written by the most intelligent minds?

    God is able to declare what the future holds. He can tell us the things to come long before they happen. This is this power of God, which can be seen when what He says come to pass, that proves that He alone is the true God. God is able to “make known the end from the beginning” – or declare what will ultimately and certainly come to pass – because He himself, with His infinite power, brings His words to fulfillment (Is. 46:9-10). This characteristic of God and of His words distinguishes Him from man. Man by Himself cannot “declare the things to come” since he cannot foretell even the day of his own death (Js. 4:14).

    Therefore, God’s power and the power of His words are found in no other. This power of the divine word, “declaring the things to come,” cannot be found in any “human text.”

    Is the Bible truly God’s word? Did the writers of the biblical books truly write through God’s inspiration? How true that what they wrote are indeed God’s words? Only the scripture that have the power of the divine word or the attributes of the word of God can rightfully claim to be the Sacred Scripture where the words of God are indeed written.

    The Bible is indeed the word of God. “What God was, the word was.” God’s power to declare what the future holds, telling us the things to come long before they happen. Since the power of God’s words are found in the words written in the Bible, the Bible also declares what the future holds, long before it happens. Thus the Bible is indeed not a human text, not a collection of myth, not in equal status with other “scriptures,” but the only Sacred Scripture where the words of God are written.

    The truth that the Bible is indeed the words of God proves the existence of God. Thus, the Bible was sent to us not only to teach us the will of God that we must obey, but as a testimony, a proof that God really exist. This is what God said to the skeptics and agnostics:

    “Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me: ‘Would you indeed annul My judgment? Would you condemn Me that you may be justified?” (Job 40:7-8 NKJV)

    “Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorant words? Brace yourself like a man, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them.

    “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. Who determined its dimensions and stretched out the surveying line? What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone.” (Job 382-7 NLT)

    Where were you when I created the earth? Tell me, since you know so much! Who decided on its size? Certainly you'll know that! Who came up with the blueprints and measurements? How was its foundation poured, and who set the cornerstone, (Job 322-6 The Message)

    “I am the LORD, your savior; I am the one who created you. I am the LORD, the Creator of all things. I alone stretched out the heavens; when I made the earth, no one helped me...The words of the wise I refute and show that their wisdom is foolishness.” (Isaiah 44:24-25 TEV)
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Thanks, Kidlat, for your reply.


    You see, you are bringing in a faith ground or in particular a religion that is founded on a bible to prove God exists.

    That makes proving God exists even more difficult than necessary, because now you have to get all mankind to first accept the authority of a religion, like for example, Christianity, and then also which version of the religion or faith - and in Christianity we have the most numbers of versions.

    Now, I always think that we should first and foremost prove God exists from reason and observation, for I see that with reason and observation mankind can all agree on when is something according to reason and according to observation.

    So, what do you say, Kidlat, shall we concentrate exclusively on proving God exists purely on reason and observation, instead of bringing in a religion?

    Let us invite also atheists and all kinds of thinkers to join us, to prove God exists (or not) according to reason and observation.

    Dear atheists, when you have proven on reason and observation that God does not exist, then we all mankind will be indebted to you, for with no God we all mankind will enjoy the utmost of freedom!
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The bible is a scientific book as well. God is the Designer of all things and the bible testifies about it.

    Long before "scientists" have proven that the world is round and is just floating in atmosphere, the bible already said that in the bible. This is because God, since He created everything, knew how everything look like:

    Isaiah 40:22
    Douay-Rheims Bible
    It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

    Job 26:7
    New Living Translation
    God stretches the northern sky over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.

    In this verse also, Job 26:7, the northern sky is an empty space, let us see what scientists discovered:

    Mysterious 'supervoid' in space is largest object ever discovered, scientists claim

    A supervoid has been discovered in the universe which is too big to fit into current models
    show the environment of this anomalous patch of the sky

    The Cold Spot area resides in the constellation Eridanus in the southern galactic hemisphere. The insets show the environment of this anomalous patch of the sky Photo: ESA Planck Collaboration
    Sarah Knapton By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor7:09PM BST 20 Apr 2015
    Astronomers have discovered a curious empty section of space which is missing around 10,000 galaxies.

    The ‘supervoid’, which is 1.8 billion light-years across, is the largest known structure ever discovered in the universe but scientists are baffled about what it is and why it is so barren.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11550868/Giant-mysterious-empty-hole-found-in-universe.html

    From New York Times in the 80's:

    VAST 'HOLE' IN SPACE APPEARS TO DEFY THEORIES
    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/02/us/vast-hole-in-space-appears-to-defy-theories.html
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The fact is that non-Christians deny that the Bible is a scientific book.

    So, you have to prove to them that the Bible is a scientific book, and that is already deviating from the issue God exists or not; even though your idea is to prove the Bible to be a scientific book, and then from the Bible prove that God exists - on scientific grounds.

    Don't you see that you could omit that step by just proving God exists from reason and observation?

    And it is more reasonable to choose the shorter and more simple way to prove a point, than to choose the more lengthy and even obviously more complicated way to prove the same point.

    But tell me, Kidlat, are you adverse to reason and observation for the ground to prove God exists or not?

    If so, tell me why.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The fact is that non-Christians deny that the Bible is a scientific book.

    So, you have to prove to them that the Bible is a scientific book, and that is already deviating from the issue God exists or not; even though your idea is to prove the Bible to be a scientific book, and then from the Bible prove that God exists - on scientific grounds.

    Don't you see that you could omit that step by just proving God exists from reason and observation?

    And it is more reasonable to choose the shorter and more simple way to prove a point, than to choose the more lengthy and even obviously more complicated way to prove the same point.

    But tell me, Kidlat, are you adverse to reason and observation for the ground to prove God exists or not?

    If so, tell me why.

    The fact is you really can't prove the truth to people who do not want to believe, same as no one will be able to wake up somebody who is pretending to sleep. You cannot force anybody, and even with His unlimited power, God will not do that. God does not force anyone to believe Him and that's why those who believe Him in faith, hope and love are very special to Him.

    I tell you, it's easy to prove God exists, in many ways, but those whose hearts are hardened will never believe in Him no matter what.

    Romans 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?”

    For anyone to be able to understand and accept the truth of God, that person should humble himself.

    1 Peter 5:6
    Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, so that in due time He may exalt you.

    Luke 14:11
    For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? Can you tell me why (if you believe)?
    Do you believe in Evolution and if you do, why?
    What is a "Liberal Protestant?
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear Kidlat:

    We are getting further but it is good because we are getting to the core of what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality outside of our mind.

    On the matter of God exists or not, your stand is that God should be proven to exist from the Bible.

    My stand is that God should first and foremost be proven to exist from reason and observation.

    You see, the Bible itself cannot be understood at all if man is not possessed of reason and cannot observe things.

    Even for you, dear Kidlat, for you to proclaim that when a man does not want to believe God exists or anything at all exists, when a man or you have no use of reason and no faculty to observe, like to see with your eyes, hear with your ears, touch with your fingers, or feel with your skin, taste with your tongue, smell with your nose, AND above all be in consciousness which is the foundation of our existence and life: then dear Kidlat, you cannot even proclaim that according to you when a man or you does not want to believe, and nothing I do can make him believe, or you believe.

    In brief, when you have no reason and no observation, no one could have succeeded to bring you to become an INC member, and now an advocate of God exists and can must be proven from the Bible.

    Even the Bible itself is useless to you without you having the use of reason and can observe things.

    So, dear Kidlat, which comes first, Bible or reason and observation?

    On a personal note, dear Kidlat, I like the INC because it has social services for mankind; but let us not go into this alien direction: let us keep to the thread which is my inquiry addressed INC folks, and in particular now to you, who are some sort of spokesman for the INC, namely, how do you members of the INC prove the existence of God?

    Summing up: Tell me, which comes first, Bible or reason and observation?

    Dear atheist colleagues here and all whatsoever other kinds of human thinkers, like Satanists, Voodoo-ists, Buddhists, Catholics, Masons, etc,, provided you have a mind as to use reason and senses as to observe things, and OF COURSE, consciousness:

    Everyone, think about this question: Which comes first, Bible or reason and observation?

    And dear atheists here, you used or we used you and I to engage in a lot of exchange of thoughts, but since there is now the strict discipline against raving mad foul language and lurid indecent graphics, I notice that you, dear atheists here, appear to have - allow me this politically incorrect suspicion, you have no more resources as to exchange thoughts with me on the issue, God exists or not.

    Again and don’t forget, everyone, to answer this question from yours truly, and also with an explanation: which comes first, Bible or reason and observation?
  • ramblerrambler PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    What on earth is a liberal protestant? :confused:
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    A liberal protestant Christian for myself is one who does not take any imposition of beliefs and practices, from any other humans in re accepting Christianity for a religion.

    My liberal protestant Christianity results in my no longer going to worship service in churches, I just worship God all in my heart and mind, by myself.

    In fact I have a thread here proposing to Christians to join me in a DIY church, which consists in meeting by previous arrangement among the members in a free public venue like the fast food hall of a mall, on a date and time that is not peak hour in the mall; and we will not need the presence of any leader whatsoever, but at most a freely agreed on facilitator of the moment - and absolutely no collection because no collection is needed for any common expenses.

    No one came forward to join me in such a DIY Christian church.

    Let us see what the google internet has for the meaning of liberal protestant.

    What you will now see is some kind of an internet google search bibliography page 1, on the entry, liberal protestant, see Annex below.

    I proposed earlier to posters starting with Kidlat to not just present an internet link like on how INC members prove God exists, without some 30 words precis on what the link is all about.

    In the list of google's hits below of a search entry, liberal protestant: every item has already a description of what the link is into.


    Annex

    Google: liberal protestant

    About 763,000 results (0.43 seconds)


    Search Results

    Influence in the United States. Liberal Christianity was most influential with Mainline Protestant churches in the early 20th century, when proponents believed the changes it would bring would be the future of the Christian church.


    Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
    Feedback
    About this result •
    People also ask
    What are the mainline churches?


    What is the difference between evangelical and Protestant?

    What is a liberal religion?

    What is theology of liberation?


    Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
    Jump to Anglican and Protestant - Influence in the United States. Liberal Christianity was most influential with Mainline Protestant churches in the early 20th century, when proponents believed the changes it would bring would be the future of the Christian church.
    ‎Liberal Christian exegesis • ‎Influence in the United States • ‎Theologians and authors


    Mainline Protestant - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant
    The mainline Protestant churches are a group of Protestant denominations in the United States ... Politically and theologically, mainline Protestants are more liberal than non-mainline Protestants. Members of mainline denominations have ...


    What Liberal Protestants Believe - Beliefnet
    www.beliefnet.com/faiths/2001/06/what-liberal-protestants-believe.aspx
    Also sometimes referred to as secular, modern, or humanistic. This is an umbrella term for Protestant denominations, or churches within denominations, that ...


    Theological liberalism | Theopedia
    www.theopedia.com/theological-liberalism
    Theological liberalism, sometimes known as Protestant Liberalism, is a theological movement rooted in the early 19th century German Enlightenment, notably in ...


    Liberal Protestant Beliefs | Our Everyday Life
    peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/liberal-protestant-beliefs-2093.html
    Liberal Protestants come from various denominations, particularly mainline denominations such as Episcopalian, Presbyterian and United Methodist as well as ...


    The Collapse of Liberal Protestant Churches | The Huffington Post
    www.huffingtonpost.com/.../the-collapse-of-liberal-protestant_b_832806...
    Oct 20, 2015 - It is true that liberal Protestant churches have lost members over the past generation, mainly through low birth rates, failure to plant new churches in growing areas, and a nationwide decline in religious affiliation. But so has the Roman Catholic church.


    PROTESTANT LIBERALISM - Christian History
    www.christianchronicler.com/history1/protestant_liberalism.html
    American Protestant Liberalism grows out of German scholarship of the late 1800s. German scholars came to deny Scripture's power and they undercut the ...


    Liberal Christianity - Conservapedia
    www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_Christianity
    Liberal Christianity or Theological Modernism is a broad term which basically refers to a movement within American Protestant denominations to stress the ...


    Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved? - The New York Times
    www.nytimes.com/2012/.../douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.htm...
    Jul 15, 2012 - What should be wished for, instead, is that liberal Christianity recovers a religious reason for its own existence. As the liberal Protestant scholar ...


    What Is Liberal Christianity? - The New York Times
    douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/what-is-liberal-christianity/
    Jul 16, 2012 - Some of this maps on to the American experience: The United States, too, had its liberal Protestant imperialists and eugenicists, and of course ...


    Searches related to liberal protestant

    liberal protestant denominations
    liberal theology beliefs
    liberal protestants apush
    liberal christianity is not christianity
    liberal theology pdf
    liberal christianity vs conservative christianity
    liberal theology vs evangelical theology
    liberal church denominations
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    Next
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    FOR MANY OF those who do not believe in God and ask this question if God exist, they insist that this question be answered according to their own standard which means you have to show them only “evidences” they wanted to see and dismiss otherwise. Because they already set their mind to accept only evidences they wanted to see, they insist to show to them only those they want, and will easily dismiss otherwise.


    “SHOW ME YOUR GOD”

    “Show me your God?” This what many of those who don’t believe in God wanted in order for them to believe that God truly exists. However, the Bible explicitly tells us that God is spirit:

    “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24 NKJV)

    Because God is spirit, we cannot see Him or God is invisible:

    “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” (I Timothy 1:17 NKJV)

    It is a fact that not because we cannot see it, it means it does not exist. Like air, atom, electricity and many else, these are not visible, but it does not mean that they do not exist. “Life” itself cannot be seen, heard or touched, but there are proofs or evidences that “life” truly exists.

    It is ridiculous that a person insists to show him “life” itself or else he will not believe it exists. A living thing grows, moves and many else that proves that it has life. What do you of a person that after you show him other evidences that life truly exists but immediately dismiss these evidences and still insists to show him life itself or else he will not believe that it exists?

    Thus, we must not insist to “show God” for He is an invisible spirit. However, although we cannot see God Himself, but it does not mean that He does not exists.


    “PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PLEASE”

    Others demand for “physical” or “material” evidence. However, because God is spirit, He is not only invisible, but He has no flesh and bones:

    “And He said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” (Luke 24:38-39 NKJV)

    If we cannot show you any physical or material evidence to prove that God exists, you will easily conclude that God does not exist? Then, you must also dismiss the “Big Bang theory” because there are no physical or material evidence to prove that it really occurred. Others might point to the elements in the universe, the stars, the planets and others as material evidences for the Big Bang theory. However, existence of the elements, suns and others does not follow that these were created through the “Big Bang.” No direct evidence that one can show that these are created through the Big Bang. Also take note, “missing link” in the so-called “evolution of man” means lack of material of physical evidences.

    My point is, why insisting for physical or material evidences or else you will not believe that God exists? Lacking or having no material or physical evidences is not sufficient to conclude that God does not exist because there are other evidences that can prove that God truly exists, unless you are ridiculous enough having already set your mind to accept only those evidences you want to see and dismiss otherwise.


    “SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE”?

    Proving through experimentation? However, how can we experiment God? Because of this, can we conclude that God does not exist? If so, why hang on “evolution”? Evolution cannot also be proven through experimentation.

    Concerning God, the Book of Job rhetorically asks, thus:

    “Can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than heaven-what can you do? Deeper than Sheol-what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth And broader than the sea.” (Job 11:7-9 NKJV)

    New Living Translation renders the following verse as follows:

    “Can you solve the mysteries of God? Can you discover everything about the Almighty? Such knowledge is higher than the heavens—and who are you? It is deeper than the underworld—what do you know? It is broader than the earth and wider than the sea.” (Job 11:7-9 NLT)


    EVERYTHING WILL ONLY END UP IN NON SEQUITUR

    Many attempt to show evidences according to man’s standard to prove the existence of God, like the “designer and design” theory and other “scientific evidences,” but this only end up in “non sequitur” (it doesn’t follows).

    However, the same is also with the other side. Not because there is a Big Bang it follows that there is no God. Not because there is evolution it follows that there is no God. Not because you can explain everything through science it follows that there is no God.

    Everything will only end up in Non Sequitur, in an endless debate.

    Thus, let us not attempt to prove the existence of God through man’s standard. Skeptics must open their mind and stop insisting to show to them evidences of the existence of God which they prefer and dismiss otherwise.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    12 Famous Scientists On The Possibility Of God
    “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious.”
    02/02/2016 05:26 pm ET

    Carol Kuruvilla
    Religion Associate Editor, The Huffington Post

    When President Barack Obama nominated the Christian geneticist Francis Collins to head the National Institutes of Health in 2009, some American scientists questioned whether someone who professed a strong belief in God was qualified to lead the largest biomedical research agency in the world.

    This argument — that scientific inquiry is essentially incompatible with religious belief — has been gaining traction in some circles in recent years. In fact, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey, American scientists are about half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher, universal power. Still, the survey found that the percentage of scientists that believe in some form of a deity or power was higher than you may think — 51 percent.

    Scientists throughout history have relied on data and observations to make sense of the world. But there are still some really big questions about the universe that science can’t easily explain: Where did matter come from? What is consciousness? And what makes us human?

    Where did matter come from? What is consciousness? And what makes us human?
    In the past, this quest for understanding has given scientists both past and present plenty of opportunities for experiencing wonder and awe. That’s because at their core, both science and religion require some kind of leap of faith — whether it’s belief in multiverses or belief in a personal God.

    In chronological order, here’s a glimpse into what some of the world’s greatest scientists thought about the possibility of a higher power.

    1 Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)

    CREDIT IMAGNO VIA GETTY IMAGES
    The astronomer and scientist Galileo Galilei was famously convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic Church for supporting the theory that the planets revolved around the sun. In private letters, he confirmed that his beliefs hadn’t changed.

    Writing to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, Galileo criticized philosophers of his time who blindly valued Biblical authority over scientific evidence.

    “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations.”
    2 Sir Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626)


    Known as the founder of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon believed that gathering and analyzing data in an organized way was essential to scientific progress. An Anglican, Bacon believed in the existence of God.

    In an essay on atheism, Bacon wrote:

    “God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”
    3 Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882)


    Charles Darwin is best known for his theory of evolution. On the question of God, Darwin admitted in letters to friends that his feelings often fluctuated. He had a hard time believing that an omnipotent God would have created a world filled with so much suffering. But at the same time, he wasn’t content to conclude that this “wonderful universe” was the result of “brute force.” If he pressed for a label, he wrote that the term “agnostic” would fit him best.

    In an 1873 letter to Dutch writer Nicolaas Dirk Doedes, Darwin wrote:

    “I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.”
    4 Maria Mitchell (1818 - 1889)


    Maria Mitchell was America’s first female astronomer and the first woman to be named to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. She was born into a Quaker family, but began to question her denomination’s teachings in her twenties. She was eventually disowned from membership and for the rest of her life, didn’t put much importance on church doctrines or attendance. Instead, she was a religious seeker who pursued a simpler sort of faith.

    After hearing a minister preach about the dangers of science, Mitchell wrote:

    “Scientific investigations, pushed on and on, will reveal new ways in which God works, and bring us deeper revelations of the wholly unknown.”
    5 Marie Curie (1867 - 1934)

    Marie Curie, a physicist, was brought up in the Catholic faith, but reportedly became agnostic in her teens. She went on to become the first woman to win a Nobel Prize. Both Marie and her husband Pierre Curie did not follow any specific religion.

    She is quoted as saying:

    “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.”
    6 Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)


    Albert Einstein, one of the most well-known physicists of the 20th century, was born into a secular Jewish family. As an adult, he tried to avoid religious labels, rejecting the idea of a “personal God,” but at the same time, separating himself from “fanatical atheists” whom he believed were unable to hear “the music of the spheres.”

    In a 1954 essay for NPR, Einstein wrote:

    “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious — the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, or who has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with the awareness of — and glimpse into — the marvelous construction of the existing world together with the steadfast determination to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. This is the basics of cosmic religiosity, and it appears to me that the most important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling among the receptive and keep it alive.”
    7 Rosalind Franklin (1920 - 1958)


    Rosalind Franklin, who helped pioneer the use of X-ray diffraction, was born into a Jewish family in London. In letters to her father, Franklin made it clear that she seriously doubted the existence of an all powerful creator, or life after death.

    When her father accused her of making science her religion, Franklin told him that she had a different definition of faith:

    “In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining. Anyone able to believe in all that religion implies obviously must have such faith, but I maintain that faith in this world is perfectly possible without faith in another world...I see no reason to believe that a creator of protoplasm or primeval matter, if such there be, has any reason to be interested in our insignificant race in a tiny corner of the universe, and still less in us, as still more insignificant individuals.”
    8 Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)


    Astronomer Carl Sagan is best known for hosting the TV series “Cosmos.” He rejected the label of “atheist” because he was open to the possibility that science would perhaps one day find compelling evidence to prove God. Nevertheless, he thought that the likelihood of that happening was very small. Instead, Sagan talked about “spirituality“ as something that happens within the realm of material world, when humans encounter nature and are filled with awe.

    In his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan writes:

    “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.”
    9 Stephen Hawking (Born 1942)


    After years of hinting at it, physicist Stephen Hawking confirmed to the press in 2014 that he was an atheist. Hawkings doesn’t believe in a heaven or an afterlife and says that the miracles of religion “aren’t compatible” with science.

    In an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, Hawking said:

    “Before we understood science, it was natural to believe that God created the universe, but now science offers a more convincing explanation.”
    10 Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (Born 1952)


    Venkatraman Ramakrishnan was born in an ancient town in Tamil Nadu, India, that is known for its famous temple dedicated to the Hindu deity Shiva. A physicist and molecular biologist, Ramakrishnan was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his research on ribosomes. While many Hindus consider astrology to be an important Vedic science and schedule life events around the movements of the stars, Ramakrishnan has spoken out against this practice in the past. He believes astrology evolved from humans’ desire to search for “patterns, generalize and believe.

    In an interview with the Hindustan Times, he said:

    “There is no scientific basis for how movement of planets and stars can influence our fate. There is no reason for time of birth to influence events years later. The predictions made are either obvious or shown to be random ... A culture based on superstitions will do worse than one based on scientific knowledge and rational thoughts.”
    11 Neil deGrasse Tyson (Born 1958)


    Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and a popular television science expert. He told The Huffington Post thathe isn’t convinced by religious arguments about the existence of a “Judeo-Christian” god that is all-powerful and all-good, especially when he observes the death and suffering caused by natural disasters. Still, he told Big Think that while he’s often “claimed by atheists,” he’s actually more of an agnostic.

    In Death By Black Hole, a collection of science essays, Tyson writes:

    “So you’re made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?”
    12 Francis Collins (Born 1960)


    Francis Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In a 2007 book about the intersection between science and faith, Collins described how he converted from atheism to Christianity and attempts to argue that the idea of a Christian God is compatible with Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    In an essay for CNN, Collins writes:

    “I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God’s majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.”

    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_us_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    A liberal protestant Christian for myself is one who does not take any imposition of beliefs and practices, from any other humans in re accepting Christianity for a religion.

    My liberal protestant Christianity results in my no longer going to worship service in churches, I just worship God all in my heart and mind, by myself.

    So you do not belong to an organized group, you do not render formal worship service and you think that you know better and so you believe in God just because you want to. Someday, you might not want to believe in Him and that is the reason why you want someone to back your intuition.

    You are actually contradicting yourself because you called out in this thread, specifically to INC to ask how we can prove that God exists. Then you called to other people who are members of religions that you think do not believe in God (i.e. Satanists) prove that God does not exist!

    What I'm getting here is that you are not stable. You could have gone directly to Atheists to consult them on why they do not believe in God!

    It seems to me that you are in the middle - you "sort of believe in God" but if convinced, you will not believe in God, am I correct? :lol:
    In fact I have a thread here proposing to Christians to join me in a DIY church, which consists in meeting by previous arrangement among the members in a free public venue like the fast food hall of a mall, on a date and time that is not peak hour in the mall; and we will not need the presence of any leader whatsoever, but at most a freely agreed on facilitator of the moment - and absolutely no collection because no collection is needed for any common expenses.

    No one came forward to join me in such a DIY Christian church.

    Who in their right mind would meet up with unstable people? Mamaya mga holdaper pala yung imi-meet nya, ano sya, bale? :lol:
  • ramblerrambler PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    In fact I have a thread here proposing to Christians to join me in a DIY church

    A DIY church? Kaloka. :glee:
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear Rambler, please examine your heart and mind, and you will notice that you are now into the irrelevancies trend, that is what I notice with posters here: eventually they will go away, or into irrelevancies, and finally into raving mad foul language and luridly indecent graphics, or change their name into something that has to do with the genitals and the *****.

    I have never come unto a poster here in PEX who will stay with me, and so that I will read something which I find to be to my learning, or he thanks me for learning something new and different from what he has always kept unchangeable in his heart and mind.

    That is one of the psychological traits of folks here, unchangeableness i.e. stubbornness, similar to the local communist rebels, the whole world has in effect abandoned the communist economical and political ideology, but the communist rebels, they are still into blowing up power grids as their ways and means of winning their communist war against the government.

    Dear readers here, when you stay longer here in my thread you will notice how some posters here will either leave this thread or which is the more probable development, resort first to irrelevancies and finally into raving mad foul language against the proponent of this thread and into luridly indecent graphics.

    So, everyone, please let us go back to what I was into inviting us all to think on, namely, which comes first, the Bible or reason and observation.


    Annex
    rambler wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by susmariosep
    In fact I have a thread here proposing to Christians to join me in a DIY church

    A DIY church? Kaloka.
  • susmariosepsusmariosep PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Dear readers here, there have been as of last count 189 views of this thread, and so far only two posters have contributed their sentiment in reaction it, namely: Kidlat and Rambler.

    On the one hand I thank you for viewing this thread of mine, on the other hand I wonder when you will have the initiative to contribute your thoughts here.

    For a starter, just state what you think is first, Bible or reason and observation, and explain a bit your choice, Bible or reason and observation.
  • TokayTokay PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    To INC folks, how do you prove God exists?

    I am a liberal protestant, I am sure that God exists and I can prove it.

    What about you folks in the INC, how do you prove God exists?

    alam mo bro. sa kinadami dami ng relihiyon na aking sinambahan, sa Iglesia ni Cristo ko lang naramdaman na may totoong Diyos na sumasama sa araw ng pagsamba.
  • Emilio BonifacioEmilio Bonifacio PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    from a convert point of view, before I join the INC I personally felt and observed that I was alienated even when I religiously attended Catholic mass and was active and participated in all Catholic religious rituals and practices. Communions, holy week penitence and fiestas for patron saints. Our ancestral abode is even replete with life size images and statues of Jesus and virgin Mary, both of my parents and their clan being so devoted to the catholic faith, raised in a known bastion of Catholicism in Neg. Oriental where remnants of Spanish colonialism still strong and can be seen even to date.

    At first it was my keen observation and reasoning, self reflection and questioning of how I seem so departed from the highest spiritual being.

    Its only later when I was indoctrinated into the Church that I learned, and this explained the alien feelings I had growing up.

    Observations and reasoning at first, until the scriptural facts provided and taken from the bible eventually convinced me to abandon the Catholic faith.

    As a Catholic then, and now an active INC member. The question I would like to pose,.

    how can you prove the existence or experience the existence of God if all your life you had been taught and introduced to a false God?
  • sophionsophion PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    rambler wrote: »
    What on earth is a liberal protestant? :confused:

    a protestant who agrees with same sex marriage :lol:
Sign In or Register to comment.