Demonstrable proof

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Capable of being demonstrated or proved. The ability to repeatedly demonstrate something consistently; anytime and under any of the same conditions.

An example: Gravity. Gravity is demonstrable because the rate at which something falls is always related to it's mass. Every time and anytime. Your house or my house. Night or day. Every single person can and does experience it and it has nothing to do with their belief in it.

Gravity is a really poor example because its very poorly understood. The effects of gravity are demonstrable, gravity itself is not. Gravity is just a label we have applied to a supposed cause for which we see demonstrable effects.

People are doing exactly what you're doing, except with God. They are seeing effects in the world and applying a cause to it (God) which you don't agree with. The effects are there, the stats are there; the cause is the unknown.

I could similarly say to you that you are experiencing the effects of God despite lack of belief in him, just as I am experiencing the effects of gravity despite not believing in it.

Effects are demonstrable, causes are theorized.

How do you determine reality from non-reality?

I use the only things I can possibly rely on: my own senses and my mind. Everything I know and experience is via my own senses and my mind. If what my senses tell me is reality is not a reality to you then that doesn't make me automatically wrong, it just means one of us is not seeing truth. If something is illogical by the classical definition, does that make it necessarily untrue?

 

[elopez]

I'm curious what kind of demonstrable and/or empirical proof Christians have for their beliefs?

First of all define "empirical" and "proof," before taking any more steps further.

 

[salida]

It is 100% irrelevant to me, because it is not applicable to me. I assume you feel the same when dealing with other religions, because to you it simply isn't true.

If they emphatically spoke about how wrong you were, you wouldn't care. And neither do I.

Does the bible exist? Yes. Was it written a long time ago? Yes. Has science proven those two statements to be true? Yes.

Is my belief in the actual life and activities of Mr. Lincoln simply a case of non-demonstrable faith, in regards to any lack of any science applied?

NO.

Now, if he made supernatural claims, I'm sure the scientific community would have been all over it. Lucky for me, he didn't.



Look, this is the exact stuff I didn't want to end up debating, but the two of you keep drudging it up.

All I asked was one question.

For the umpteenth time: How you determine reality from non-reality?

Science doesn't deal with the supernatural but the natural sir.
I already answered your reality question.

 

[Non sequitur]

I'm showing evidence for those who want to know-this may or may not be you. We will find out.

(oldest religion)
http://www.workersforjesus.com/five.htm

The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell a former agnostic- (its overwhelming circumstantial evidence of bible) and Examine the Evidence by Muncaster a former athiest/The Case for Christ and The Real Jesus by Lee Strobel a former athiest.

(non biblical sources proving bible)
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm
http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Proof_of_Yahshua.htm
http://www.jonsplace.org/rel/bible.htm
Evidence of bible
http://www.spokanebiblechurch.com/Acrobat%20Files/Evidence.pdf
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
http://equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura
http://equip.org/articles/bible-reliability
http://www.reasonableanswers.org/12-Eyewitnesses-of-the-resurrection.html
Bible history
http://www.gotquestions.org/original-Bible.html

Internal Evidence (prophesies confirmed within bible)
Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Lukes time period 60-70 AD)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 - Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60 - 70 AD)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14 - Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60 - 70 AD)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of a dream of
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20/and the fourth
great kingdom to follow- part iron and clay-which is the Roman Empire. During this empire Christ came and his church was established.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Accuracy
The bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago and has not
been proven incorrect in any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament starts - at 25 years between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Manuscript Copies-New Testament - 5,686/Homer - 643/Demosthenes - 200/
Plato - 7/Caesar -10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency/Written by God
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years and has no internal inconsistencies.
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Timothy 3:16-17. No other religious book makes such claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Evidences (prophesies outside bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22
Tyre - Ezekiel 26:1-28
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bible before Science- He hangs the earth on nothing-Job 26:7/Earth is a sphere-Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight-Job 28:25/Gravity-Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33/Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6
(Job was written at least 1000 BC; some scholars think 3000 BC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles
Archeological Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

The Epic of Gilgamesh???? The flood bit in Gen. 6-8 matches the older Babylonian myth in plot, and particularly, in details. This is chronologically reversed and you call it proof???

The first link you posted, by whomever Stan is, says, "JUDAISM is the world's oldest, a religion of just one people: the Jews. They were the first to teach belief in only one God. Two other important religions developed from Judaism: Christianity and Islam."

Yeah, no.

Judaism is the oldest Abrahamic religion (1400 BC), not the world's oldest religion. Also, that's not Christianity! (~ 30 BC)

Hinduism is the world's oldest contemporary religion (1500 BC) and if we go non-organised religion we find to Paganism to be the oldest; worshiping Mother Earth and whatnot.

Plus oldest would not have anything to do with anything being true.


No, no, no, no, no, I'm not going to do this.

I asked for specific references to specific claims. Not a downpour of religious websites, anecdotal claims and unknown and unaccredited authors.

Digging through all that and having a back and forth about them all will take ages.

For as many references you can make, I can make as many others and we will get nowhere.

Please just answer my original question.

 

[Non sequitur]

First of all define "empirical" and "proof," before taking any more steps further.

Proof: Evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Facts: Something demonstrated to exist.

Exist: To have actual being; be real.

Real: Existing or occurring, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Non sequitur, I've noticed you skipped my response? Do you have nothing to say to it?

 

[razeontherock]

First, using phrases without any evidence to back up any claim makes it null and void.

"Overwhelming evidence"? Please use specific scientific references to cite this "evidence".

This is not the way to explore Christianity. If you're looking for an argument, there's a million places on the web for that. Not here.

 

[Biker Angel]

.

Maybe you can answer my original question: How do you determine reality from non-reality?

You should be asking this in the philosophy forum.

Proof: Evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Facts: Something demonstrated to exist.

Exist: To have actual being; be real.

Real: Existing or occurring, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent

Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah." Then Jesus left them and went away.
Matthew 16:4

You want proof but none shall you have until by faith you believe.
Your just one of thousands that roll thru here demanding proof and refusing to consider anything a Christian points out to you. You all eventually get sorted out and soon forgotten as you drop down to the bottom of the thread page.

If you really want to learn then you would be asking the right questions and not trying to argue your newbie way around. My gut feeling is that you don't want to learn about Christianity and that you would rather oppose it with your I want proof rant. This forum is for EXPLORING CHRISTIANITY that does not mean that you can use it as a platform for your disbelief.

 

[Hentenza]

How you determine reality from non-reality?

My 5 senses and reason. I see God everywhere I look. I feel God everywhere I feel. I smell God everywhere I smell. I hear God in everything I hear. I taste God in everything I taste. I reason that God exists because my 5 senses tell me that He does. It is obvious that your 5 senses tell you differently. Don't stop searching because one day you just might find Him with your five senses.

 

[pinkputter]

I'm curious what kind of demonstrable and/or empirical proof Christians have for their beliefs?

Do you think you are a rather "good" person on your own merit? Do you observe any weakness and more importantly ability to be a selfish person at heart? These are questions you should ask yourself before you decide if Jesus is even important to your life. He is there for you, but you must make the choice to come to HIM.

There is always room for doubt. The purpose of Christianity is not to prove everything belongs to God, as God doesn't need to prove Himself and that would defeat the purpose of Faith. He just is. "I Am what I say I Am," He says in the OT.

I'm not sure if you were interested in debate, but there's an answer to your question.

 

[elopez]

Proof: Evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Facts: Something demonstrated to exist.

Exist: To have actual being; be real.

Real: Existing or occurring, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent

I was asking you to define two words, and out of all those other definitions you left out the only other I was inquiring about. It is my opinion that beliefs cannot be proved empirically, and even then beliefs can be held justifiably.

For example it cannot be proven that the sun will rise tomorrow, though we believe it is going to based on very solid grounds. I cannot prove my beliefs of Christianity, but that doesn't mean I cannot adhere to them.

 

[Non sequitur]

Gravity is a really poor example because its very poorly understood. The effects of gravity are demonstrable, gravity itself is not. Gravity is just a label we have applied to a supposed cause for which we see demonstrable effects.

Gravity is a perfect example and it being "understood" is irrelevant.

It's repeatable. It doesn't work some times and other times it doesn't.

Gravity is a label we have applied to a supposed cause for which we see demonstrable effects because when we test for it, it yields us the same results anytime and every time.

People are doing exactly what you're doing, except with God. They are seeing effects in the world and applying a cause to it (God) which you don't agree with. The effects are there, the stats are there; the cause is the unknown.

I could similarly say to you that you are experiencing the effects of God despite lack of belief in him, just as I am experiencing the effects of gravity despite not believing in it.

So we have an unknown cause... except this time, it can't be tested to show it does exist. And we're gonna go ahead and say we know what it is.

Effects are demonstrable, causes are theorized.

Yup. And causes are theorized by our ability to have demonstrable evidence for it.

Otherwise we say, "Most likely." Not, "We really, really know".

I use the only things I can possibly rely on: my own senses and my mind. Everything I know and experience is via my own senses and my mind. If what my senses tell me is reality is not a reality to you then that doesn't make me automatically wrong, it just means one of us is not seeing truth. If something is illogical by the classical definition, does that make it necessarily untrue?

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

First of all, "senses" and "feelings" don't count when we are talking about reality vs non-reality. If my senses tell me that 20 ft aliens exist, that doesn't make them so.... except in my mind, maybe. Again, not a true reality.

Second, if something tells you that your reality is different than mine and vice-versa, it does not automatically mean that only one of those realities is the truth.

If something is illogical by definition, it doesn't make it necessarily untrue or true.

 

[Non sequitur]

Science doesn't deal with the supernatural but the natural sir.
I already answered your reality question.

That/you did not answer the question about how you determine reality from non-reality.

You simply made a statement about science.

Why is it so hard to just reply to that question?

 

[Non sequitur]

You should be asking this in the philosophy forum.

Why? It applies to (my) exploring Christianity.

Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah." Then Jesus left them and went away.
Matthew 16:4

You want proof but none shall you have until by faith you believe.
Your just one of thousands that roll thru here demanding proof and refusing to consider anything a Christian points out to you. You all eventually get sorted out and soon forgotten as you drop down to the bottom of the thread page.

If you really want to learn then you would be asking the right questions and not trying to argue your newbie way around. My gut feeling is that you don't want to learn about Christianity and that you would rather oppose it with your I want proof rant. This forum is for EXPLORING CHRISTIANITY that does not mean that you can use it as a platform for your disbelief.

I asked how people are determining reality from non-reality and you jump to not accepting proof provided? I didn't ask for this proof that you claim I am denying.

Am I in the plot of a movie or something?! Is understanding your religion like a word test or puzzle?!

I'll soon be forgotten?

I have to ask the right questions?

Is that what your religion taught you?

From my understanding, your accusations and judgments are rather UnChrist-like.

 

[Non sequitur]

My 5 senses and reason. I see God everywhere I look. I feel God everywhere I feel. I smell God everywhere I smell. I hear God in everything I hear. I taste God in everything I taste. I reason that God exists because my 5 senses tell me that He does. It is obvious that your 5 senses tell you differently. Don't stop searching because one day you just might find Him with your five senses.

Thank you for answering me

Are we talking in a metaphysical type way?

Or can you turn to your left and literally look at God and poke him, like you could a cat or dog?

 

[Non sequitur]

Do you think you are a rather "good" person on your own merit? Do you observe any weakness and more importantly ability to be a selfish person at heart? These are questions you should ask yourself before you decide if Flerinugenish is even important to your life. He is there for you, but you must make the choice to come to HIM.

There is always room for doubt. The purpose of Flerinugenism is not to prove everything belongs to the mighty leprechaun, as the mighty leprechaun doesn't need to prove Himself and that would defeat the purpose of Faith. He just is. "I Am what I say I Am," He says in the manual.

I'm not sure if you were interested in debate, but there's an answer to your question.

I wasn't particularly interested in a debate.

See what I did up there?

Throw any words you want in there and instantly, BOOM, it's a case for whatever I want it to be.

It didn't establish the reality of Flerinugenish, just my possible belief in it.

 

[Non sequitur]

I was asking you to define two words, and out of all those other definitions you left out the only other I was inquiring about. It is my opinion that beliefs cannot be proved empirically, and even then beliefs can be held justifiably.

For example it cannot be proven that the sun will rise tomorrow, though we believe it is going to based on very solid grounds. I cannot prove my beliefs of Christianity, but that doesn't mean I cannot adhere to them.

It can be proven* the sun will* rise tomorrow.

We have demonstrable evidence establishing that it will. And none of it has to do with our observation of what we saw happen yesterday making it as "the reason". Generally, because of gravity (which we can test for) we know that it will. It has no other choice, but to.

We know it will, unless something unforeseen makes it not.
__
*By "proven" and "will" I mean, 99.99% kinda way. If you want to count huge (and for some reason unseen to those monitoring) meteors knocking things out of orbit or the sun imploding, then be my guest. But that's reaching...


So, you can adhere to beliefs that can not be proven empirically, fine.

I just find it puzzling when and why someone would want to.


Making the jump from "knowing" to "believing" (in the context that we are talking about), require nothing demonstrable or, at best, personal interpretation.

The belief in something that only requires personal interpretation and/or no demonstrable proof, especially the circular logical kind, is in direct opposition of the truth, by its very definition.

Otherwise, you would have to accept that every other religion as true (i.e. reality, valid, etc.), as well.

 

[Non sequitur]

First, using phrases without any evidence to back up any claim makes it null and void.

"Overwhelming evidence"? Please use specific scientific references to cite this "evidence".

This is not the way to explore Christianity. If you're looking for an argument, there's a million places on the web for that. Not here.

Again, never was looking for one...

But ok, I'll throw out any evidence for Christianity that helps me explore it, as I am not looking for any argument.

I have just thrown away the Bible and all information about any history related to Christianity, per your suggestion.

Now what?

 

[Non sequitur]

Your understanding of Christ as I see it is liken to an ignorant unbeliever, so how would you know anything about Christ to judge me or compare me to?

My apologies; it is not my religious belief, so I have to go on what I have read and been told about Jesus. Which of these comments were the Christ-like ones, that didn't involve you accusing and/or judging me.

"You all eventually get sorted out and soon forgotten as you drop down to the bottom of the thread page."

"If you really want to learn then you would be asking the right questions..."

"My gut feeling is that you don't want to learn about Christianity and that you would rather oppose it with your I want proof rant."

(I guess the question would be: Would Jesus have ever said any of these things to me?)

 

[elopez]

It can be proven* the sun will* rise tomorrow.

Remember, you have defined "proof" as "Evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement." If it can be proved that the sun will rise, it should be an established fact, correct?

We have demonstrable evidence establishing that it will. And none of it has to do with our observation of what we saw happen yesterday making it as "the reason". Generally, because of gravity (which we can test for) we know that it will. It has no other choice, but to.

We know it will, unless something unforeseen makes it not.

We have evidence that it should rise tomorrow, but none of it is definite in that we know what will happen tomorrow. For all we know it will not rise and that's the end of it. Think about it terms of your existence. You cannot prove that you will rise out of bed tomorrow, can you? You do not actually "know" that you will be alive tomorrow or any point beyond that. Same goes with the sun rising.
__

*By "proven" and "will" I mean, 99.99% kinda way. If you want to count huge (and for some reason unseen to those monitoring) meteors knocking things out of orbit or the sun imploding, then be my guest. But that's reaching...

So now when you define "proof" here is it different than how you defined it earlier as "Evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement"? Is it a fact that you will live to see tomorrow?

So, you can adhere to beliefs that can not be proven empirically, fine.

I just find it puzzling when and why someone would want to.

Well because I find those beliefs to fit how I percieve the world. Just because you don't understand someones reasoning for believing something doesn't mean there isn't one.

Making the jump from "knowing" to "believing" (in the context that we are talking about), require nothing demonstrable or, at best, personal interpretation.

The belief in something that only requires personal interpretation and/or no demonstrable proof, especially the circular logical kind, is in direct opposition of the truth, by its very definition.

Otherwise, you would have to accept that every other religion as true (i.e. reality, valid, etc.), as well.

Well knowing isn't the same thing as believing, I would say. I believe things of Christianity, I do not claim to know them with certainty because of some empirical proof. What exactly are you referring to when you say circular logic? I believe there are certain things from each religion that may be true or valid, but I'm not sure that makes the religion on whole valid or true.