Burden of Proof

Ryft · Jan 20, 2007

Umaro said:
Why is the burden of proof placed on the disbelievers? . . . If you make a positive existence claim, positive proof is your burdenor is there a reason it shouldn't be like that?

Properly understood, the 'burden of proof' is the responsibility of providing a valid argument in support of a conclusion; ergo, the burden of proof falls upon anyone who states a conclusion. It simply means, "Your conclusion is noted; now, let us see the premises which led to that conclusion, so that we might critically examine it for validity." Positive claims or negative claims, it matters not. If you state a conclusion, expect to be held responsible for supporting it. Conclusions are not pulled from thin air, assumptions are.

Umaro · Jan 21, 2007

Ryft said:
Properly understood, the 'burden of proof' is the responsibility of providing a valid argument in support of a conclusion; ergo, the burden of proof falls upon anyone who states a conclusion. It simply means, "Your conclusion is noted; now, let us see the premises which led to that conclusion, so that we might critically examine it for validity." Positive claims or negative claims, it matters not. If you state a conclusion, expect to be held responsible for supporting it. Conclusions are not pulled from thin air, assumptions are.

I disagree. Only the one making the claim has to provide the proof. The one refuting the claim does not. If I said I can fly unaided, and then provided no proof, you wouldn't have to prove me wrong. The logical default for something without proof is not 'maybe', it's 'no.'

Rafael · Jan 21, 2007

Umaro said:
I disagree. Only the one making the claim has to provide the proof. The one refuting the claim does not. If I said I can fly unaided, and then provided no proof, you wouldn't have to prove me wrong. The logical default for something without proof is not 'maybe', it's 'no.'

Men set out to prove things because they do not know; therefore, the burden theirs to prove what is true or untrue - "proving all things", as the Bible says to do.
God set up our galaxy and universe just so we would ask the questions and observe. Another great book is "Rare Earth", by Paleontologist Peter Ward and astronomer Donald Brownlee, showing just how rare it is that we inhabit this planet and have life within the spirals of space dust, being able to observe the core of the galaxy and then the rest of the galazies. It is not a Christian book,but is used by them. Also, "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology", by William A. Dembski is a very good presentation that addresses some of the atheists newest arguments against Intelligent design and shows how "God's design is accessible to scientific inquiry."

PhilosopherD · Jan 21, 2007

Umaro said:
I disagree. Only the one making the claim has to provide the proof. The one refuting the claim does not. If I said I can fly unaided, and then provided no proof, you wouldn't have to prove me wrong. The logical default for something without proof is not 'maybe', it's 'no.'

Ok, so by that, when you say "There is no God," are you making a claim or simply spouting syllables? Hence, you being the atheist, when you therefore say, "There is no God," we can assume that you are not making a claim because you are also stating that YOU have nothing to prove.

Unless, of course......you really intend to mean that "There is no God." But, then you wouldn't want to assert that....

Umaro · Jan 21, 2007

PhilosopherD said:
Ok, so by that, when you say "There is no God," are you making a claim or simply spouting syllables? Hence, you being the atheist, when you therefore say, "There is no God," we can assume that you are not making a claim because you are also stating that YOU have nothing to prove.

Unless, of course......you really intend to mean that "There is no God." But, then you wouldn't want to assert that....

I'm refuting the claim your god exists. How come you don't need disprove all the other Gods?

Ryft · Jan 21, 2007

Umaro said:
I disagree. Only the one making the claim has to provide the proof.

You may disagree all you like, but it matters very little because the formal principles and criteria of validity of reasoning are not defined and established by Umaro. When a person learns elementary philosophy and critical thinking skills, none of the relevant texts bear your name. Having said that, your rebuttal itself here fails to refute my statement at any rate. It is true that "the one making the claim" bears the burden of proof, regardless of whether it is 'positive' or 'negative' ontological claim because when you state a conclusion you bear "the responsibility of providing a valid argument in support of a conclusion"i.e. the burden of proof.

For example, one may state, "God does not exist," but that is a conclusion impotently and vacuously wondering around without its premises. People can state unsupported conclusions all day long if they like, but they should not be surprised that no one is giving them much consideration. "If you state a conclusion, expect to be held responsible for supporting it."

Umaro said:
The logical default for something without proof is not 'maybe', it's 'no.'

That is not the logical "default", Umaro, it's a logical "fallacy" known as argumentum ad ignorantiamthe fallacy of arguing that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

Umaro · Jan 21, 2007

"That is not the logical "default", Umaro, it's a logical "fallacy" known as argumentum ad ignorantiam—the fallacy of arguing that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true."

So doesn't that mean every God ever conceived exists because you cannot prove it wrong? If not, that's quite a double standard.

Calminian · Jan 22, 2007

tapero said:
Hi Umaro,

The answer to that question lies in Romans 1.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

This first response pretty much nails it so I'll just build from here. Scripture tells us that God has created an intrinsic knowledge of Himself within man. Thus man actually has to suppress it to deny God. This is why man will be without excuse before God even if all his skeptical questions weren't answered here on earth.

Now this certainly does not mean that christians shouldn't give answers to difficult questions. It is our task to remind those of the knowledge they've suppressed. But ultimately, when you stand before God, you'll know that you at least had enough knowledge to seek. For that you'll be without excuse.

Ryft · Jan 22, 2007

Umaro said:
So doesn't that mean every God ever conceived exists because you cannot prove it wrong? If not, that's quite a double standard.

No sir, that is simply the other pole of the exact same fallacy, this time arguing that something must be true because it hasn't been proved false. Stephen N. Thomas explains that "the reasoning in both these arguments is fallacious" because "lack of proof or evidence about a claim establishes neither that it is true nor that it is false" (Practical Reasoning in Natural Language, 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997).

The truth-tracking method of effective philosophic inquiry would lead us to believe a proposition when the evidence available to us justifies our believing it, to reject a proposition when our evidence disconfirms it, and to suspend judgment about it when our evidence neither confirms nor disconfirms it" (David H. Lund, Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003).

Umaro · Jan 22, 2007

Ryft said:
No sir, that is simply the other pole of the exact same fallacy, this time arguing that something must be true because it hasn't been proved false. Stephen N. Thomas explains that "the reasoning in both these arguments is fallacious" because "lack of proof or evidence about a claim establishes neither that it is true nor that it is false" (Practical Reasoning in Natural Language, 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997).

The truth-tracking method of effective philosophic inquiry would lead us to believe a proposition when the evidence available to us justifies our believing it, to reject a proposition when our evidence disconfirms it, and to suspend judgment about it when our evidence neither confirms nor disconfirms it" (David H. Lund, Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003).

So shouldn't that mean everyone be completely agnostic to all gods then?

PhilosopherD · Jan 22, 2007

Umaro said:
So shouldn't that mean everyone be completely agnostic to all gods then?

Yes, you would be correct, IF faith in the Christian God simply amounted to our success in pushing reason to some conclusion of 'faith'. But, as the N.T. teaches, Christian 'faith' is also a result of God's spiritual influence upon our lives, hearts and minds.

In other words, we can reason away as much as we want to deductively, inductively, or even scientifically, and no matter how much we push our intellects, we will still fall short of faith...without God's help that is.

The problem here is that God goes against the modernist ideas of liberty, freedom, and autonomy. God doesn't play by our 'rational' rules...we just think that He should.

Ryft · Jan 22, 2007

Umaro said:
So shouldn't that mean everyone be completely agnostic to all gods then?

No, because that would be illogical. Why should I be completely agnostic about something when evidence disconfirms it? Or why should I be completely agnostic about something when the evidence justifies my believing it? Your brain keeps shifting between extremes; I would encourage you to take the more rational approach, Umaro. Leave the extremes to the fundamentalists (yes, there are fundy atheists too). From all the things I have said thus far, your conclusion ought to be, "Everyone should be completely agnostic about gods when the evidence neither confirms nor disconfirms it."

When there is solid reason to believe a proposition, it is epistemically responsible to do so. To reject a proposition, after ignoring its solid rational evidence, is the epistemically irresponsible thing to do.

Umaro · Jan 22, 2007

Ryft said:
No, because that would be illogical. Why should I be completely agnostic about something when evidence disconfirms it? Or why should I be completely agnostic about something when the evidence justifies my believing it? Your brain keeps shifting between extremes; I would encourage you to take the more rational approach, Umaro. Leave the extremes to the fundamentalists (yes, there are fundy atheists too). From all the things I have said thus far, your conclusion ought to be, "Everyone should be completely agnostic about gods when the evidence neither confirms nor disconfirms it."

When there is solid reason to believe a proposition, it is epistemically responsible to do so. To reject a proposition, after ignoring its solid rational evidence, is the epistemically irresponsible thing to do.

I'm well aware I'm bouncing between extremes, as I was trying to make a point. Mainly that since there is no evidence for God, I don't see why atheists are asked to disprove it. I find it strange I can use the same evidence Christians use for their God for every other god, so when you say "Why should I be completely agnostic about something when evidence disconfirms it?" You're really just saying you have faith without proof. It's fine to think that way, but don't claim it's the logically correct viewpoint. It's incredibly logical to not believe in something that has no supporting reasons.

Ryft · Jan 23, 2007

Umaro said:
. . . since there is no evidence for God . . . something that has no supporting reasons . . .

Forgive me, you are the first omniscient human I have ever met. I did not think such a thing was even possible for a human being, to be honest. And on top of that you are only nineteen years old! This is incredible! Never in my life have I encountered someone who has heard every single argument for the existence of Godand who has managed to completely refute each and every one of them. Especially so soon in life! You give the term "prodigy" a whole new meaning, my friend! Perhaps you might indulge me, if I could hold just a bit more of your time, and reveal to me the complete refutation of the transcendental argument? I've never seen anyone do it.

(...end sarcasm.)

I think my point is made. I'm fairly confident that you have not, in fact, heard every single argument for the existence of God, that I could probably suggest a couple you would actually have to Google just to find out what they are (e.g. perhaps you had to Google the "transcendental" one). And I am even more confident that you have not refuted them all. If any of this were the case, you would currently be a media sensation and certainly overwhelmed with invitations to speak at universities and such. I think it is fairly probable that your statements, while zealous, were just a tad unrealistic in scope. Perhaps you might consider tethering your passion with a more realistic degree of confidence? Because I'm not the only one who would expect you to support such statementsand then make a spectacle of your failure to do so. Save yourself the embarrassment, Umaro, and speak more sensibly.

While it is possible that you have not encountered a convincing argument for the existence of God, that does not mean there are none. Furthermore, it is possible that your attempted refutations would themselves collapse under critical scrutiny. And it is possible that there are solid reasons for God-belief out there which you have not yet heard. There are several reasons for being more cautious and responsible with your statements.

Having said all that, it will be noted that my previous posts remain established; I had indicated the fallacious nature of your statements and they went unrefuted.

Umaro said:
I find it strange I can use the same evidence Christian's use for their God for every other god . . .

I find that strange, too. Please defend the existence of Apollo using the transcendental argument. Before I make a spectacle of your failure to do so, I will grant you the opportunity to retract this statement and reconsider your confidence. I hope you take this opportunity.

Umaro said:
When you say "Why should I be completely agnostic about something when evidence disconfirms it?" you're really just saying you have faith without proof.

No, what I'm really saying is, "Why should I be completely agnostic about something when evidence disconfirms it?" You should be careful when presuming your opponent's meaning; he usually knows his meaning better than you do, especially when you don't know him at all.

1. When the sum of available evidence disconfirms the belief that 'X' (e.g. there is a square circle sitting on my desk), I am not agnostic about 'X'; I flatly reject it.

2. When the sum of available evidence justifies the belief that 'X' (e.g. there is a basketball in my back yard), I am not agnostic about it; I believe it.

3. When the sum of available evidence neither justifies nor disconfirms the belief that 'X' (e.g. there is life on other planets), I am agnostic about it; i.e. I suspend judgment about it.

Umaro · Jan 23, 2007

Ryft, since this isn't a debate forum, I shall continue this in a PM.

phoenixgw · Jan 23, 2007

If the existence of God could be proved to us beyond a shadow of a doubt, we would not require faith. In faith "believing is seeing," while those who favor arguments say, "Seeing is believing."

It is true that the complexity of the universe points to an act that is deliberate & not random, as is indicated in the Book of Romans. Therefore, we should know at least that there is a higher order than the human race--one worth searching for.

However, if there is a God who created this universe, would this God not be more complex than the creation? Complexity then, does not necessarily require a creator, for the God of the Bible tells us he always was, & had no creator. Arguments cannot lead us to God. A "leap of faith" is required to believe in God.

Atheism & reason are roads that ultimately lead to a dead end. I will pray that the light of Christ shines on you, so that one day you might turn to Jesus in your brokenness & he might lead you on a new road.

When I got to my "dead end," Jesus said to me, "You have built so many walls around yourself that not even I could come in." Then the walls fell. I'd rather be the village idiot in heaven than a genius in this world. The inner peace that a Christian has surpasses all knowledge.

I have a challenge for you. Read the book of Luke in the Bible & see if you can find fault in the man they call Jesus. If you find anything, let me know.

Umaro · Jan 23, 2007

phoenixgw said:
If the existence of God could be proved to us beyond a shadow of a doubt, we would not require faith. In faith "believing is seeing," while those who favor arguments say, "Seeing is believing."

It is true that the complexity of the universe points to an act that is deliberate & not random, as is indicated in the Book of Romans. Therefore, we should know at least that there is a higher order than the human race--one worth searching for.

However, if there is a God who created this universe, would this God not be more complex than the creation? Complexity then, does not necessarily require a creator, for the God of the Bible tells us he always was, & had no creator. Arguments cannot lead us to God. A "leap of faith" is required to believe in God.

Atheism & reason are roads that ultimately lead to a dead end. I will pray that the light of Christ shines on you, so that one day you might turn to Jesus in your brokenness & he might lead you on a new road.

When I got to my "dead end," Jesus said to me, "You have built so many walls around yourself that not even I could come in." Then the walls fell. I'd rather be the village idiot in heaven than a genius in this world. The inner peace that a Christian has surpasses all knowledge.

I have a challenge for you. Read the book of Luke in the Bible & see if you can find fault in the man they call Jesus. If you find anything, let me know.

Challenge Accepted.

What time did the women visit the tomb?

Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

Matthew: No (28:2)
Mark: Yes (16:4)
Luke: Yes (24:2)
John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

Matthew: Yes (28:8)
Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

Matthew: Yes (28:9)
John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

Mark: No (16:13)
Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?

Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
John: No ascension
Paul: No ascension
Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

Source http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone

calidog · Jan 23, 2007

Umaro said:
Why is the burden of proof placed on the disbelievers? In every other instance apart from religion, the burden of proof rests on the positive claim. Nonbelievers shouldn't have to disprove God until believers can prove Him. If I walked up to you and said "Fairies exist and made our entire world, and since you cannot prove me wrong I am speaking truth," you'd all think I was crazy. If you make a positive existence claim, positive proof is your burden, or is there a reason it shouldn't be like that?

The burden of proof is not on the individual it is on God. Prior to Jesus Christ, God revealed Himself in magnificent and obvious ways to man. Since Christ, God reveales Himself to man through the Holy Spirit (God). He, God, the Holy Spirit, now is with all mankind and convinces us all of sin, righteousness, and judgement.

calidog · Jan 23, 2007

Umaro said:
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

Matthew: Yes (28:9)

John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

Joh 20:17 -
Touch me not - Μη μου ἁπτου, Cling not to me. Ἁπτομαι has this sense in Job_31:7, where the Septuagint use it for the Hebrew דבק dabak, which signifies to cleave, cling, stick, or be glued to. From Mat_28:9, it appears that some of the women held him by the feet and worshipped him. This probably Mary did; and our Lord seems to have spoken to her to this effect: "Spend no longer time with me now: I am not going immediately to heaven - you will have several opportunities of seeing me again: but go and tell my disciples, that I am, by and by, to ascend to my Father and God, who is your Father and God also. Therefore, let them take courage."

phoenixgw · Jan 26, 2007

I tried your email, Umaro--it bounced me out. I hope you are still with us. We need sharp minds like yours to keep our faith honest. Here is the letter that I tried to send you:

Umaro:
I haven't been on this website long, but in the last couple of weeks I have seen your name all over the place--questions, challenges, arguments. You seem to want to prove the existence of this Jesus so that you can believe, or disprove all claims of his existence so that you can get on with your life--good luck with that.

I asked you to read the book of Luke for a reason. Luke's Gospel focuses on the perfect humanity of Jesus. This differs from the other Gospels--Matthew's account focuses on Jesus, the High Priest & King; Mark: Jesus, the Conqueror of death & sin; John: Jesus: the incarnation of God.

You have indeed found many, if not all of the discrepancies in the Gospels that describe parts of Jesus' life & his ministry. Your scholarship is very good. I have come across many of these discrepancies as well in my MDiv. studies. What you haven't done, however, is find fault in the man they called Jesus. You have, in effect, built a strawman out of the 4 Gospels & tore it down. Jesus is still standing. You have failed in your attempt to find fault in the man they call Jesus. These different accounts of parts of Jesus' life & ministry don't trouble me at all & I'll tell you why.

My professor, a PhD graduate & noted scholar, used modern analytical techniques as you have & came up with almost the exact same argument that you did. This man, a professing Christian, said, "When I read the Gospels, I see 4 different Jesuses. How can I believe their accounts?" I answered him with this. Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John are 4 witnesses pointing their fingers at a star. When you see the star, you don't need the fingers anymore.

The professor could not refute my argument, for to do so would be to admit that he hasn't saw (experienced) the presence of Jesus (the star) in his life. He was dumbstruck. Like you, his "faith" (beliefs) was based on logical arguments & scholarship. His knowledge of God & the Scriptures was very broad, but not very deep. His emptiness was there for all to see. That is the power of God-given revelation, which is greater than any PhD degree.

The Gospel is supposed to be good news. Why are you trying to "gun down" his messengers? The Bible is like a tapestry. The inconsistencies you point out are part of the Bible we read. The Bible itself seems like a tangled, disjointed collection of works that give us no complete history, no comprehensive guide to living, or even a complete account of Jesus's life. When one beholds the other side of the tapestry, however, revelations of how God is weaving perfections out of our imperfections (including the Gospel author's) come to light, and harmony is restored to our minds & souls.

You are in a bad place now, lacking inner peace & full of unrest. I've been there. If you are looking for intelligent scholarship to articulate matters of faith, I would suggest that you read the works of Karl Barth. If you want peace of mind, I suggest you keep searching for Jesus until you find him, or he finds you at your rope's end, when reason has failed you (more likely).

Keep asking, keep seeking, keep knocking. I wish you well on your faith journey and will pray for the light of Christ to shine your way.

Burden of Proof

Nihil sine Deo.

Senior Veteran

Only time enough for love

PhilosopherD

Guest

Senior Veteran

Nihil sine Deo.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Nihil sine Deo.

Senior Veteran

PhilosopherD

Guest

Nihil sine Deo.

Senior Veteran

Nihil sine Deo.

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency