Proving God without biblical sources

[jinkazama]

Often Christians assert that absolutely that God is real and knowable, but there is difference between "I believe in God" vs "I know God exists", if it is knowable, it is universal to everyone. Since you can not use the scientific to prove God since first God is immaterial and can not be tested empirical, what are the evidences that God exist?

Using arguments from nature and morality, and classical theistic arguements (cosmological, ontological, teleological, first cause,etc), are not as strong due subsituting "God" for "Universe in any argument.

Often christians used the Bible as a source for their evidences but there is logical flaw called ‘begging the question’, or circular reasoning. It is based on assuming something to be true, using that assumption as fact to prove another assumption and using the "proved" assumption to prove your original assumption. Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself.

Often prophecy and historical evidences to prove Jesus exist, but since no one is actually there to confirm it, but from the mouths of messengers and prophets, it does not absolutely prove God exists, but that that person who record the event exist.

As a Christian, how do you respond to this without using biblical sources to prove God is a rational belief?
Thanks

 

[shinbits]

How about all the prophecies in the OT that talk about the location of Jesus' birth, things Jesus did, and His death on the Cross?

After all, Jesus was an actual historical figure, like Mohammed, and really did walk the earth.

Some of the prophecies, like in Isaiah, were written 700 years before Christs birth.

Acurately predicting a future event is one sign of the divinity of the Bible.

And if the Bible is divine, then the God that the Bible says "breathed" into the Scriptures must be real.

I know this alone may not be enough to convince you, but it's a good start to this discussion.

 

[Jig]

I can write you out a long and detailed essay on how a God must exist...but I'm on a time limit here.


I suggest reading some books on the issue.

I reccommend Lee Strobel's books: The Case for Faith, The Case for Christ, and The Case for Creation.

He used to be an atheist, and has asked some of the hardest questions to believers (most have Ph.D's and are outstanding scholars), to see how they answer. They are really good if your having problems with your faith.

The Case for a Creator is only 6.99 for it's hardcover at Christianbook.com/ it has more of a science perspective to creation.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=41449&netp_id=315935&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

 

[pastorkevin73]

Honestly, outside Jesus' claim to be God, I cannot physically prove that God exists. However, I cannot physically prove that the wind exists either. You may be thinking, ah, but I can feel and see the effects of the wind. The same thing is true with God. I feel God by what He is doing in my life and how he supplies all my needs. There has been to many things happen in my life that could not be considered coincedence. It is evidence of God at work. Then I also see God at work all around me. I see His creation and how it is in perfect order and able to continue to exist by His hand alone. I see lives transformed that defy human will. Then there are miracles, signs and wonders. God is like the wind, I can't physically prove He exists, but I see the affects of Him.

 

[shinbits]

Here also is a philosophical aproach to prove the existance of God, which is accepted enough to teach in colleges (where I learned this)

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/descartes-god.html

His name is Descarte. He's a leading figure in philosophy.

Enjoy!

 

[jinkazama]

I can write you out a long and detailed essay on how a God must exist...but I'm on a time limit here.


I suggest reading some books on the issue.

I reccommend Lee Strobel's books: The Case for Faith, The Case for Christ, and The Case for Creation.

He used to be an atheist, and has asked some of the hardest questions to believers (must have Ph.D's and are outstanding schalors), to see how they answer. They are really good if your having problems with your faith.

The Case for a Creator is only 6.99 for it's hardcover at Christianbook.com/ it has more of a science perspective to creation.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=41449&netp_id=315935&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW

I have that book and many Christian apologetic books, by Norman Geisler, Hugh Ross, J.P. Moreland, but i found their arguments lacking. I have many Intelligent Desings books also. I am a Christian by the way, I need stronger arguments than just quoting Christian authors and using own sources to affirm the argument.

 

[shinbits]

.:d

You may also want to read "The Case For Christ", by Lee Strobel. It's an excellent book, which has aproaches that are logical and give great evidences for Christ.

Here's a review of the book:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

 

[Jig]

I have that book and many Christian apologetic books, by Norman Geisler, Hugh Ross, J.P. Moreland, but i found their arguments lacking. I have many Intelligent Desings books also. I am a Christian by the way, I need stronger arguments than just quoting Christian authors and using own sources to affirm the argument.

You may want to listen to debates then...they breing up alot of good stuff.
I believe you can download some off the net...not sure if you have to pay.

It all comes down to if YOU feel God exists. God has given us free-will. He can not give us explicit evidence to His existence because that wouldn't leave us with a choice. If your a Christian, you must also feel that the atheists 'evidence' is also lacking, even more so then the Christians 'evidence'. The proof is in your heart.

 

[jinkazama]

.:d

You may also want to read "The Case For Christ", by Lee Strobel. It's an excellent book, which has aproaches that are logical and give great evidences for Christ.

Here's a review of the book:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

I have that book too, my problem since we do not have a video camera of real footage and no one can absolutely prove that his divine nature but taken it for granted but attempt to make judgements based on what could have happen, it is still not good enough for me.

 

[OnTheWay]

You either believe or you don't. Trying to prove that existence of God on some sort of quasi-scientific basis is a fool's errand. God would never allow it either. Why should you get to know something, something that requires no faith, when all the generations from now until the beginning had to believe?

 

[jinkazama]

You either believe or you don't. Trying to prove that existence of God on some sort of quasi-scientific basis is a fool's errand. God would never allow it either. Why should you get to know something, something that requires no faith, when all the generations from now until the beginning had to believe?

David Hume said, "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." The more extraordinary a scientific claim is, the more extraordinarily well tested the evidence must be.


When someone attributes good reasoning to his own beliefs, but bad reasoning to other people's beliefs, he is guilty of the Attribution Bias. According to some studies, most people said that they believed in God because the evidence supports their belief. However, when these same people were asked why others believed in God, they said that other people believe because they were raised with that belief, or religion offers comfort when they get old. In other words, people like to think of themselves as very logical, but like to think of their neighbors as less logical.

When someone subconsciously filters evidence to support his established beliefs, he is guilty of the Confirmation Bias. According to some studies, we pay more attention to evidence that confirms what we believe, while we tend to ignore evidence which might ask us to reevaluate what we believe. When we hear a new piece of evidence, most of us simply find a way to fit that evidence into our already established beliefs. Intelligent people are better equipped to deceive themselves because they imagine that they are objective and open to new ideas, when they are simply rationalizing to reaffirm their old opinions.

How do you respond to this, i am sharpening my apologetics, i am asking these questions to get ideas to defend our faith.

 

[Jig]

David Hume said, "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." The more extraordinary a scientific claim is, the more extraordinarily well tested the evidence must be.


When someone attributes good reasoning to his own beliefs, but bad reasoning to other people's beliefs, he is guilty of the Attribution Bias. According to some studies, most people said that they believed in God because the evidence supports their belief. However, when these same people were asked why others believed in God, they said that other people believe because they were raised with that belief, or religion offers comfort when they get old. In other words, people like to think of themselves as very logical, but like to think of their neighbors as less logical.

When someone subconsciously filters evidence to support his established beliefs, he is guilty of the Confirmation Bias. According to some studies, we pay more attention to evidence that confirms what we believe, while we tend to ignore evidence which might ask us to reevaluate what we believe. When we hear a new piece of evidence, most of us simply find a way to fit that evidence into our already established beliefs. Intelligent people are better equipped to deceive themselves because they imagine that they are objective and open to new ideas, when they are simply rationalizing to reaffirm their old opinions.

How do you respond to this, i am sharpening my apologetics, i am asking these questions to get ideas to defend our faith.

We are taling about God here though. How can we have faith, if we could explicitly prove God existed without ANY doubt?

Proverbs 3:5
5Trust in the LORD with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.

Colossians 2:8
8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Romans 1:22
22Professing to be wise, they became fools,

 

[OnTheWay]

The problem is the inane notions of western theology, espeically those found in protestantism, that leads to these kinds of questions in the first place. No human being is free of bias, simply not within the abilities of a fallen man. The proof of the existence of God is within one's self. The still small voice that is inside. As such anyone that attempts to approach this from a point of view that seeks academic proofs is doomed to failure. Yes, one could say these feelings are some sort of higher brain function, but once again you either believe or you do not.

However, as a basic matter of rhetoric you cannot prove a negative. Therefore trying to prove that God does not exist is pointless. When dealing with the subject the atheist runs into a trap. How did matter come into being? For this question there can be no scientific answer. It must by nature run into the philosophical, something along the lines of "matter exists because nothing cannot exist." Logically there is no way to prove that. However, a believer can simply note that God always was and brought creation into being ex nihlo. Though the simple fact remains this is something that must be believed or disbelieved on a personal basis. I can tell you the experiences in my life that have lead me to know that God exists. However, that is my personal knowledge and by its very nature cannot be shared as objective evidence or proved. I know it to be true, but have no illusions that I could ever prove it to another.

 

[GraceInHim]

creation

 

[JonF]

There are some beliefs that in their very nature are impossible to offer objective evidence for or against.

One such example would be this: God exist and God has given me all power and all knowledge on the condition I use this power and knowledge to keep everyone ignorant of my power and knowledge.

This is a belief that is not verifiable by its very nature (mutual affirmation). Any evidence to support this belief would equally support its negation. And any evidence to support the negation of the belief would equally support the non negated belief.

There are many other types of beliefs like this. The types that pertain to this topic are: beliefs that require circular reasoning to make a meaningful statement about. For example, consider a belief just about everyone holds: The past is representative of the future. There is no way to support this belief with out first believing what is in the past has some bearing in the future. Like wise there is no way to argue a denial of this belief with out assuming at some point the past won’t represent the future.

Belief in God is a belief that requires circular reasoning to prove or disprove. God existing means there can exist contradictions (this follows from God being all powerful). Because of this the standard logical assumption that contradictions can’t exist is begging the question. If we don’t assume contradictions can’t exist then deductive logic isn’t guarantied to be truth preserving. This means any argument isn’t a proof since by definition proofs are truth preserving.

So there is no way to prove God exist or God doesn’t exist. But prove is a very strong word. We can certainly suggest, or imply, or show why it is reasonable to believe that God exist.

 

[jinkazama]

Since we can not disapprove and prove God, does it mean it is neutral answer, one may believes that God is in their heart, it becomes a subjective experience, how do you respond to this? Thanks

 

[GraceInHim]

Since we can not disapprove and prove God, does it mean it is neutral answer, one may believes that God is in their heart, it becomes a subjective experience, how do you respond to this? Thanks

human body.. seems very intelligently designed by a powerful source...

 

[JonF]

Since we can not disapprove and prove God, does it mean it is neutral answer, one may believes that God is in their heart, it becomes a subjective experience, how do you respond to this? Thanks

Your use of the word neutral is unclear, what specifically do you mean? Also you aren’t clearly saying what is subjective. Is it the belief that God is in their heart that is subjective? Or the belief in God at all that is subjective? Or God actually being in their heart that is subjective?

 

[jinkazama]

Your use of the word neutral is unclear, what specifically do you mean? Also you aren’t clearly saying what is subjective. Is it the belief that God is in their heart that is subjective? Or the belief in God at all that is subjective? Or God actually being in their heart that is subjective?

What i am saying is that no one can absolutely prove God exist or nor He doesn't exist, the answer remain tenative, since some people have claimed to experience God and some have not experience God, it becomes a matter of subjective experience since not all people have experienced it.

 

[JonF]

What causes you to have a belief is always subjective. That is the very nature of belief and is true of all beliefs whether or not pertaining to God. Also I think you are using a much too strong of word. Proof is a very specific thing. You can certainly argue belief in God, you just can’t prove it.