How to prove God exists.

[Dave-W]

Don't you believe in eternal security?

I am Wesleyan/Arminian in understanding, so the answer to that is NO.

If one shifts their BELIEF in God to a mere mental ascent of His existence based on scientific proof, faith is gone. That is called "unbelief."

Rom 11.20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

 

[Freodin]

Been there, done that... repeatedly.

Got no response.

I do not expect any response to my questions.

But the best way to show wrong someone who claims that his opposite only plays "hide and seek" is to go into the open and present the challenge directly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

I mean AD 2017.

Before educated unbelievers plutoed it.

Even believers know that your date is wrong. No one "plutoed" anything. For example depending on which part of Luke one is reading Jesus was born in either rough 4 BCE or 6 CE. Neither date yields today as being in the year 2017 AD.

 

[Radrook]

The problem is that what you present is not evidence. They are beliefs.

That's what you tag any evidence which goes contrary to your pet preconceptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what you tag any evidence which goes contrary to your pet preconceptions.

No, you simply have no evidence. You don't even seem to understand the concept. In the world of science one cannot even have evidence without a testable hypothesis to begin with. People keep asking you that question for a reason. Where is your testable hypothesis? If you don't have one then by definition you do not have any evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

If one shifts their BELIEF in God to a mere mental ascent of His existence based on scientific proof, faith is gone. That is called "unbelief."

Are you saying that a person who is walking by faith ... if he writes AD 2017 on his checks ... is going to Hell?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that a person who is walking by faith ... if he writes AD 2017 on his checks ... is going to Hell?

That has very little to do with faith, it neither confirms nor refutes it. The use of "AD" shows only personal prejudice for a system that one is familiar with.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm sorry.

Did I break the mold?

The unresponsive poster in question was Pachomius.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even believers know that your date is wrong. No one "plutoed" anything. For example depending on which part of Luke one is reading Jesus was born in either rough 4 BCE or 6 CE. Neither date yields today as being in the year 2017 AD.

But it's still AD.

That's why I highlighted it.

I did not highlight 2017.

Jesus was born in the year AD 1, whenever that was.

But the educated elite got their fingers in it and spaghettied it to 4 BC.

Go higher academia!

 

[AV1611VET]

That has very little to do with faith,

That is correct.

It is, in my opinion, physical evidence of the existence of God.

Along with holidays, hymns, iconography, churches ...

The use of "AD" shows only personal prejudice for a system that one is familiar with.

And what's your personal prejudice?

Do you wrote 2017 CE* on your checks?

* Or is it properly written CE 2017? or did educated plutoers overlook that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is correct.

It is, in my opinion, physical evidence of the existence of God.

Along with holidays, hymns, iconography, churches ...And what's your personal prejudice?

None of that is evidence of any value and it is clearly not "physical evidence". By your standards Muslim mosques, holidays etc. are evidence for Allah, Buddhist rites are evidence for Buddha. You end up being overwhelmed with evidence against your faith by such a loose definition.

Do you wrote 2017 CE* on your checks?

* Or is it properly written CE 2017? or did educated plutoers overlook that?

Neither. I simply write 2017, no qualifiers needed. Do you seriously add AD to your checks? Do you think that someone might be confused and think that the check was written 2017 BC?

 

[AV1611VET]

None of that is evidence of any value and it is clearly not "physical evidence".

Autodenial is the easiest form of denial, isn't it?

By your standards Muslim mosques, holidays etc. are evidence for Allah, Buddhist rites are evidence for Buddha.

No, those must be your standards.

My standards come with what is called ontological mimicry, which rules out Allah and Buddha.

You end up being overwhelmed with evidence against your faith by such a loose definition.

No.

You end up being overwhelmed by 'evidence against our faith.'

You only confuse yourself with that logic.

Neither. I simply write 2017, no qualifiers needed. Do you seriously add AD to your checks? Do you think that someone might be confused and think that the check was written 2017 BC?

Way to miss the point.

 

[Dave-W]

Are you saying that a person who is walking by faith ... if he writes AD 2017 on his checks ... is going to Hell?

It has nothing to do with whether he calls this 2017 or (as I do) 5777. Read the Hebrews verse again; one MUST believe God exists, not just accept His presence as a matter of scientific fact. That is not faith and will save no one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Autodenial is the easiest form of denial, isn't it?

It was a simple correction. You don't seem to understand what "physical evidence" is.

No, those must be your standards.

Not my standards. The standards of rational people.

My standards come with what is called ontological mimicry, which rules out Allah and Buddha.No.

Your "standards" are false since they are not consistent. And since Hinduism is older than your beliefs that would make your beliefs a "ontological mimicry" of theirs. Are you sure that you want to go that route?

You end up being overwhelmed by 'evidence against our faith.'

Fine, a rational person ends up being overwhelmed.

You only confuse yourself with that logic.Way to miss the point.

You have that backwards again. We all know who is the person that is confused here.

 

[bhsmte]

That's what you tag any evidence which goes contrary to your pet preconceptions.

What evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Read the Hebrews verse again;

What 'Hebrews verse'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not my standards. The standards of rational people.

... No comment.

 

[Dave-W]

What 'Hebrews verse'?

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

 

[AV1611VET]

See my post #101

Um ...

Rom 11.20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

... looks English to me.

And sloppy English at that.

 

[Dave-W]

Quite right. I mistyped the number, so I just re-quoted the verse. We cross posted.