Does one have to be God to prove God exists?

[PurpleBasil]

Had a Christian minister in our home this weekend. I'm atheist.

He said that one has to be everywhere in the world to prove God does or doesn't exist. Omnipresence is a characteristic of God. Therefore one would have to be God to prove God exists/doesn't exist.

Does this make any sense to anyone? I scratch my head at this b/c 1. it is an evangelism tool designed to overcome the objections of the atheist and it fails, and 2. it seems to invalidate the claim of this Christian faith (that God exists).

[Elzabet]

That's a new one. I guess he didn't bother to explain what that was supposed to mean? To extrapolate a little...

Mark 6:1-6 (NIV)

Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith.

Elsewhere in the Bible it says that God works by faith. So, if you haven't got faith in God (even that He merely exists and will reward those who believe in Him--Hebrews 11:6) then you will not be able to see His work. You would have to be able to see His work by those who have faith.

Maybe.

The thing is if the listener isn't a believer and doesn't know these things about how faith works then the point is lost on the listener.

Did that help any or just make it worse?

[PurpleBasil]

That does help, Elzabet! Thank you. I agree that in order for some of these assertions to make sense, one must be on board with the faith concept from the get go. When the premise and conclusions begin and end in the Bible, it's tough to discuss logically.

I do seem to remember, though, that many who witnessed the miracles of Jesus (according to the Bible) were confused and not converted, per se. They marveled but didn't take up their cross so to speak and follow him. Nor did those who had faith necessarily 'see' his work as evidenced by his admonition for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, etc. and resulting frustration with his followers who didn't get it.

Unless one's seeing of his work is ex post facto proof of underlying, unrealized 'faith'?

Here's more of this minister's ideas and where he got this:

Atheism
A person must be able to be everywhere at the same time to prove God does not exist. For example: If you were looking for your friend and heard that he was in America, you could come to America and visit some of the major cities looking for him. While you are in New York City, your friend could be in Chicago. If you then go to Chicago, you friend could have moved on to Dallas. By the time you made it to Dallas, your friend could have gone on to Los Angeles. You might travel around the whole country and never find your friend. But you would not be able to make the statement, I know my friend is not in America. To make that statement, you would have to be everywhere at the same time.

http://198.92.124.175/bfotf/existence.html

The word, 'weak' comes to mind. I still don't understand how this is a valid argument for proving God's existence. How is it a valid argument for denying the existence of anything?? Strange.

From the same church's precepts:

Jesus is a historical character.

a. It cannot be denied that He lived on this earth about two thousand years ago.

b. Almost everybody in the world believes that Jesus lived in Palestine .

Believing something doesn't make it fact. I fully support the choice to believe or 'have faith' but...

[stafl]

That is not one of the classic arguments for or against the existence of God, that I was taught in college. I'd be interested in hearing more of what he had to say about it, though. Doesn't sound like an argument that would hold much water to me, but we'd have to examine it further.

[Elzabet]

Yes, that argument is rather flawed. If you aren't looking for Carmen Sandiego, who cares where in the world she is? Or Waldo. Or God. It wasn't too well thought out. As for historical evidence of the person of Jesus, there actually is evidence that a man named Jesus lived and was executed in Palestine under Pilate. Whether that man was God Incarnate is a matter of belief.

[yeah yeah yeah]

Wasn't there a line in Heathers:

"They broke up. He thought he was God, and she disagreed."


That's all I could think when I saw this topic's name.

[merpk]

Elzabet, sounds like the minister was discussing proof of whether or not G!d exists, not whether or not Jesus was divine ... which is actually an entirely different question. I find his argument interesting in a politician's "distract 'em from the topic at hand" way, this having to be everywhere at all times idea. Don't see how it would sway anyone, but it is an interesting lesson in how to change the topic without having to change the subject.

And off-topic, BTW, the land Jesus lived in was not named Palestine until approximately 100 years *after* he died. So technically he never lived in Palestine. He lived in Judea.