Why believe in what cannot be proven?

[Aprill]

Guys, guys. A personal experience does not register as proof, the ontological proof of God is a very weak philosophical argument. Also, Moses did not write the first books of the bible, there were four sources that disagreed on the very nature of God. For example, in one account God intervened directly while the other with a proxy (see the speaking bush of fire).

For the historical value of the Bible, Archaeologists in Israel found that many buildings' dates were off by sometimes a even few hundred years.

You cannot prove the existence of God.

YEs and carbon dating is faulty as well, and is being proven to not be an accurate way of dating things...

So what were you trying to prove? That it can't be proven?

 

[Aces High]

The fact that the Bible is the most revelant and followed book in the world ever, the fact that one man's teachings changed the whole world, there were witnesses back then, and the fact that miracles do happen now, the fact that I HAVE EXPERIENCED GOD PERSONALLY and so have millions if not a billion others.

I could keep going on and lots of people have given really good responses here, especially the 2nd poster

 

[PrettyLittlePrincess]

Why put so much importance on what can or cannot be proven? Being "proven" only means that somehow human beings have studied a concept until it fit in with human logic. I personally think it's arrogant of us as a species to believe that human intelligence is great enough to understand everything. Really, for example, can we comprehend how long eternity is or how big the universe is or the concept of infinity itself? I personally think it's mind boggling because in order to comprehend it, we'd have to exist outside of it and look in on it. With the things we do understand, we come to that understanding by studying them from the outside. God can though, becuase He does exist outside of it all, and that's just the beginning of what He understands that we can never dream to.

In other words, being "proven" is extremely over-rated.

 

[TwilightSol]

two questions is all i have. Can science prove there is a God? Can science prove there is no God? Christianity is religion based on beliveing without seeing, trusting without doubting. but God gave us the freedom to act the way we wanted so now all we're doing is given you a nog in the right direction.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I think God transcends Science, so we can't really use it to prove him. But what do I know, I don't need proof.

 

[wmc1982]

It is a simple question, really, but one that no one wants to answer. Why are you theist? Why blindly follow the stories written down by your fellow man?

Let me ask you one. Do you "blindly" believe in George Washington, Shakesphere, Aristotle, or Socrates; which are all stories written down by our fellow men?

 

[MessianicJewishGuy]

It is a simple question, really, but one that no one wants to answer. Why are you theist? Why blindly follow the stories written down by your fellow man?

Then why should I believe in Evolution. It has never been proven. However the more you dig the more you will realize that the Bible is historically accurate and the prophetic verse are being proven correct. The issue is that you want to create and argument instead of investigate.

 

[PolskiKrol]

It is a simple question, really, but one that no one wants to answer. Why are you theist? Why blindly follow the stories written down by your fellow man?

To believe in nothing is to blindly follow what you cannot prove. How can you prove that a God doesn't exist?

 

[mpok1519]

why would God makre sure everyone could be assured of His existence?

doesn't that take all the fun(and purpose) out of faith?

why believe in nothing? Or what you can only fathom as possible? If you only focus on what is clearly possible, where the challenge in trying to obtain the impossible?

 

[monkeypsycho62]

EDIT: I could've sworn I was in the Evolution debate forum.

 

[ebia]

EDIT: I could've sworn I was in the Evolution debate forum.

What you say is partly true, but...

actually what we look for isn't proof, but evidence. Not much outside of maths is actually proven.

secondly, we all do accept things on little or no evidence all the time - we only usually demand evidence when we have reason to doubt

thirdly we have to consider what sort of evidence we should hope for - what evidence is appropriate. It would be unreasonable to demand scientific evidence for something that is outside science's remit, for example. You don't go looking for scientific evidence that Julius Caesar invaded Britian - you look for historical evidence. Jane doesn't expect scientific evidence that John loves her - she hopes for flowers and chocolate.

 

[Katie7725]

Pastafarian--

Ha, that nobody wants to answer? Really? I would be more than happy to answer this. The Bible is the most true book in the world. I'm a christian first spiritually and then for intellectual reasons secondly. This isn't the book section, but have you ever read Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell (it would stand up in a court of law concerning the evidence of the bible) and Examine the Evidence by Muncaster (who was a former atheist)? In addition, One Man Adam by Hugo Ross? - it traces the genetics from Adam and Eve to us - this book can be found on www.reasons.org - its a belief and science website - the website creator has a PhD in Chemistry. One can't prove many things using the scientific method of things that we know exist.

Biblical Evidence (Scratching the Surface Only)

Internal Evidences
Prophesies that are 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)
(Luke's time period is 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)/(60-70 AD)

**I can list at least 20 more of these.
-Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20) and a fourth great kingdom to follow - part iron and clay - which is the Roman Empire - during this empire Christ came and the church was established - Daniel 2:44.

-Historical Accuracy
The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago, yet has not been proven incorrect on 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 at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no internal inconsistencies.



Claim of Inspiration
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.

External Evidences
(Prophesies Outside the Bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never be 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
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago - some scholars think it could be even 3000 years ago)
Note: Man only knew this for 350 years
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

Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

Archealogoical Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

This is your answer. One has to outright ignore these facts to reject them.

Salida, yes the bible was written a long time ago by men and it is consistent due to documented history that the next guy in line can apply what is there and add to it. Yes jesus was a real man no one is denying that, but his supernatural power is unprovable. Men are clever, they know how to make things appear valid and true. The Catholic church at the time was very corrupt and was the main source of money in the nations of that time. Jesus's words have been perverted and changed to the extent they are not his words anymore. There are a lot books that are historically correct but their message and characters are exaggerated in most cases. Oh and there are tons of bible contradictions just Google bible contradictions and you will find tons of them. Oh and the bible is not the only book said to be from god, the Koran makes the same claims so why are you not a Muslim? That book was written by men long ago but we all know it's nonsense.

 

[Katie7725]

you should read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins, it will make it clear to you. Ill make a deal I read the whole bible if you read the god delusion. That sounds fair enough, unless you are scared to test your faith.

 

[wmc1982]

you should read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins, it will make it clear to you. Ill make a deal I read the whole bible if you read the god delusion. That sounds fair enough, unless you are scared to test your faith.

Dawkins is an extreme opposite to Christianity. I would bet that you don't have a good understanding of Christianity. Dawkins was convincing a few years ago, but not anymore. He can be convincing, but he can't defeat history. He will soon be a faded memory, but Christ will live on for all eternity. You seek clarity, but you are only discovering impurities. Seek Truth, and you will find who is Good, seek wisdom from man, and you will find yourself in a never ending spiral of insanity.

 

[ebia]

Salida, yes the bible was written a long time ago by men and it is consistent due to documented history that the next guy in line can apply what is there and add to it. Yes jesus was a real man no one is denying that, but his supernatural power is unprovable. Men are clever, they know how to make things appear valid and true. The Catholic church at the time was very corrupt and was the main source of money in the nations of that time.

At what time? The books of the New Testament were all written, and which books were canonical 90% decided way before the church became rich or powerful, let alone corrupt.

Jesus's words have been perverted and changed to the extent they are not his words anymore.

While what we have may not be in every case exactly what he said, its close enough that everyone who knew what he said was happy with it. If those people did believe he had been resurrected and shown to be who he claimed why would they change his words? If they didn't believe he was resurrected why did they continue to follow someone who was clearly just another failed messiah - those were 10 a penny in the 1st century and their followings fell apart virtually as soon as they were executed.

There are a lot books that are historically correct but their message and characters are exaggerated in most cases.

There may be some tweaking to make the stories flow, and to make the points clear, but wholesale manipulation doesn't fit what we have and what we know about the communities who wrote the books.

Oh and there are tons of bible contradictions just Google bible contradictions and you will find tons of them.

Yes. Pretending they aren't there is silly. But so is pretending that they are significant.

Oh and the bible is not the only book said to be from god, the Koran makes the same claims so why are you not a Muslim? That book was written by men long ago but we all know it's nonsense.

What the Koran claims about itself, and what the bible claims about itself, are vastly different. The Koran claims to be directly authored by God, to have existed eternally, etc. (Yet it certainly doesn't look like either of those in places.)

The bible (in so far as it claims anything itself) is supposed to be written by men inspired by God. A much more subtle process resulting in a much more complex and nuanced product. God works through his creation to save it, even though that means working thought the very broken instruments he is trying to mend.

 

[ebia]

you should read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins, it will make it clear to you. Ill make a deal I read the whole bible if you read the god delusion. That sounds fair enough, unless you are scared to test your faith.

What I've seen of his stuff hasn't inspired me to read futher, since what he seems to be addressing is a deist idea of God, not a proper Judeo/Christian understanding of God.

I don't mind reading it, but reading time is limited so one chooses what is worth reading. Nothing so far has indicated that Dawkins is worth it. (on theology - I'm told he is very good at explaining science accurately).

 

[wmc1982]

Dawkins most often refuses to debate with Creationists. He knows his arguments will not hold up.

"In a December 2004 interview with Bill Moyers, Dawkins stated that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Dawkins went on to say, "It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ...Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence."

Jesus Christ is fact, not a massive clue.

 

[Katie7725]

lol its funny how people like to compare believing in god to human thought. If thats the case than why not Zeus you cant prove him or can you? Human thought is a caused by chemicals in electric signals in the brain. You think so you know it's true, there is evidence that our senses can acquire. Oh and about the car example. Yes your car couldn't have came together out of nothing because it is not organic. The process of Evolution (the most valid theory in scientific history) is small changes to increase complexity. Read the origin of species to find out more. The Universe is very old, billions of years in fact, and that is proven by a number of scientific tests.The idea that everything started with simple matter makes much more sense than a complex being such as god creating a complex universe. In that case how did god come to be? It is more sensible to say the universe is infinite and eternal than a complex being such as god.

 

[Katie7725]

wmc1982 that is a blatant lie, go to youtube and watch many of his debates with christians where he leaves them speechless and stupefied.

 

[wmc1982]

wmc1982 that is a blatant lie, go to youtube and watch many of his debates with christians where he leaves them speechless and stupefied.

Show me one incident where he leaves a Christian speechless and stupified. Dawkins is basing everything on a theory, nothing on fact. Christ lives in me currently, and His truth is constantly portraying fact in and thruout my life.

If you believe Dawkins is true because of youtube, you probably also believe that Bush caused the 911 attacks and that Dick Cheney is a reptile.

I don't hold it against you though, because you are still young, and pretty cute.