"Proving" God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God



Message

MLuttrell1027 -> "Proving" God (4/9/2008 4:28:46 PM)

I was in a discussion in another forum where titled “God, does it exist?” I made a post using biblical references and got numerous posts back saying I can’t use the Bible to prove my point? I replied back If you are asking a believer to not use the Bible to prove God then you have to ask the unbeliever to use the Bible to not prove God. This was un-welcomed. Ha! Any advice on how to witness or defend your faith without the use of the Bible? Can it be done?



CherishedbyGod -> RE: "Proving" God (4/9/2008 4:48:49 PM)

I think that sounds like a no-won situation on that forum....

Sounds like they are pretty close-minded[8D]



bob97 -> RE: "Proving" God (4/9/2008 5:05:01 PM)

Seems to me it’s impossible to prove the bible to someone unless they have faith, regardless if you use it or not.

Apparently Satan doesn't believe it.

Bob



Ephesians4_32 -> RE: "Proving" God (4/9/2008 7:35:05 PM)

Without faith it is impossible to please Him. But God has made His existence evident. As a teen, my husband looked up at the starry sky on a winter night and simply knew that God exists. When God gives some people an inkling of His existence, they turn their backs on Him and run the other way.

Psalm 14
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.


Romans 1
17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

John 3
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

God doesn't expect us to prove that He exists! But if someone tells you how to prove it to an unbeliever, I'll know what to say to my many unbelieving relatives.

Hebrews 11
6But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

James 1
5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.



Prairiehiker -> RE: "Proving" God (4/9/2008 9:59:00 PM)

Atheist: Do you believe there is a God.
Christian: THe bible said He exist
Atheist: WHy do you believe in the bible?
Christian: Because I believe that God inspired the writings of the bible.

Do you see how this just doesn't make sense unless you already have a commitment to believe in God. It's a circular argument.

Have you tried the Intelligent Design arguments when discussing how you came to believe there is a God? I mean, these arguments don't use the bible to infer that there is a Creator who is personally involved with His creation. Of course, we as Christians believe that this Creator is God.

I agree that when you're debating non Christians, if you give a privileged position to any of the biblical writings, you already lost the debate. You have to approach them at their level and argue base on reason, instead of faith, for you to come across as a credible.



bob97 -> RE: "Proving" God (4/9/2008 10:56:51 PM)

I've decided that it is not up to me to convince non-believers that there is a God. It is my responsibly to tell them and show them about God and His Son Jesus Christ...I'll leave it up to God to persuade them. [8D]

Bob



Gray_Wanderer -> RE: "Proving" God (4/11/2008 11:33:27 AM)

quote:

MLuttrell1027

I was in a discussion in another forum where titled “God, does it exist?” I made a post using biblical references and got numerous posts back saying I can’t use the Bible to prove my point? I replied back If you are asking a believer to not use the Bible to prove God then you have to ask the unbeliever to use the Bible to not prove God. This was un-welcomed. Ha! Any advice on how to witness or defend your faith without the use of the Bible? Can it be done?

Your response sounds valid to me, although looking in almost any area of science (from astrophysics to microbiology) there is evidence of design and therefore, of God. There is extra-Biblical evidence of God, the problem is that (like the Bible) a person who is dead set against believing something will ignore all evidence to the contrary.

quote:

bob97

I've decided that it is not up to me to convince non-believers that there is a God. It is my responsibly to tell them and show them about God and His Son Jesus Christ...I'll leave it up to God to persuade them.

Isn't this contrary to the Great Commission, which to my understanding is to at least to try to bring them to an understanding, to give them the option of "coming to faith"?



Szaftoo -> RE: "Proving" God (4/13/2008 10:17:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gray_Wanderer

quote:

bob97

I've decided that it is not up to me to convince non-believers that there is a God. It is my responsibly to tell them and show them about God and His Son Jesus Christ...I'll leave it up to God to persuade them.


Isn't this contrary to the Great Commission, which to my understanding is to at least to try to bring them to an understanding, to give them the option of "coming to faith"?


We are to share the good news and live a life that attracts unbelievers and then allow the Holy Spirit to convict.



SD456 -> RE: "Proving" God (4/13/2008 7:15:36 PM)

Yes, there are ways to speak about the proof of God without using the bible.

I'm told that Lee Strobel does a great job in his book "a case for Christ." He proves to himself that christ was real and the bible is real without using the bible for the most part.



Prairiehiker -> RE: "Proving" God (4/13/2008 10:46:26 PM)

Lee Strobel makes compelling arguments for th existense of God. They're not proofs, but they will lead you to reasons why we believe that there is a God who's involved with us.

I like his books. Very easy reading. The Case for the Real Jesus is what I'm reading right now. This one really deepened by faith because of the Resurrection arguments.



Doghouse -> RE: "Proving" God (4/14/2008 7:23:43 AM)

If you take something on FAITH, you are accepting it without proof. That's why its called FAITH, and we don't refer to ourselves as practicing Christian FACT, but Christian FAITH.

Having said that, atheism is a statement of faith as well, as you can no more disprove God than prove Him.

So, arriving at the concession that what is being discussed is two different versions of faith and two faith statements, discussions with an atheist can be had on a level playing field. To me, this conversation usually evolves to a discussion of "faith in what?".

Do you believe with hope, desire, and passion? Or do you believe in despair, regret, and hopelessness?

You can also make the argument that people alone seem to be hard-wired for "faith". Why is this? If you are a Darwinist, explain the survival mechanisms involved in the evolution of this human trait (the ability to hope for and accept something without proof...) and its selection over an inferior trait (presumably the inability to hope and desire...) over the course of our development.

I believe that you arrive at a conclusion that looks something like having faith in something positive and meaningful can give one the perseverence to survive calamity. I think this can be argued to be by design, and not by coincidence.

All powerful discussions to have with atheists - without resorting to Scriptures.

What is the code of conduct for an atheist - lacking acknowledgement to some faith system? (Judaism, Taoism, Hinduism...)

If you know anything about John Nash and "game theory", you can cite this as a designed mechanism to give rise to a system that exists that is either by coincidence, or by design - and is too ordered to be by coincidence. Game theory states that the individual behaviors most beneficial to those in a group by each of the individuals in a group, is the coordinated behaviors which best serve the entire group, and not the individual behaviors that primarily serve the needs of the individuals, even in isolation or with a lack of communication within the group. Sort of a mathmatical "love thy neighbor" approach to complex negotiations or design of market regulation mechanisms.



BibleBased -> RE: "Proving" God (4/29/2008 3:38:33 PM)

Present the good news/ gospel and those who accept it by the power of the Holy Spirit will move towards the light - represented by your words, the bible, the local church/ christian community. Those who mock, make trouble, speak against you, move away from you presenting God's truth to them will be lost and live in darkness.

Actually i've found it is a good test on line and in real life, whether someone is 'actually' a believer or not. Starting talking about the bible to them, add in quotes and if they don't want the conversation or say i don't believe that ........ well at least doubts must occur. Popular churches without scripture are not churches of our Lord. I went to one that had services nearly 2 hours long - only 2 verses of scripture. They had so many people they didn't fit in the church, needed to use a local school. But without the bible and God's teaching it might as well have been a snooker or football club! Love BibleBased.



MusicianDad -> RE: "Proving" God (5/6/2008 9:35:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doghouse

If you take something on FAITH, you are accepting it without proof. That's why its called FAITH, and we don't refer to ourselves as practicing Christian FACT, but Christian FAITH.


I disagree. Christianity is not blind faith. All of nature shows the intellect of the Creator. It gives evidence of intelligent design. The prophecy of the Bible (ex. Daniel) is evidence of Gods revelation. The witness of the Apostles in the face of death is evidence of the truth claims of Christianity. The list goes on. It takes faith to be a Christian, but the evidence is also on our side.



frankman -> RE: "Proving" God (5/6/2008 4:48:31 PM)

In the real world our lifestyle is the only Bible the world will ever read. So how we live our lives as a real living testimony of Jesus before them will make a difference. Also praying for unbelievers is very important.

On the net unbelievers prefer that we not use Scripture verses because they know there is a power in the Word that they can`t defend against. They can`t see our lives on the net, therefore it is only the Bible that could convict them of their sins and the need for a Savior. That is why Paul teaches us in Eph. 6:17 to arm ourselves with "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God." Also without the WORD and the SPIRIT we can not convince anybody that God exists, that they are sinners and that they need Christ. This convincing is not our job but the work of the Holy Spirit. using our posts and the Bible as a tool. So whether the unbeliever likes it our not, if your online and your not willing to pray for the person your sharing with, or your not willing to share with them Scripture when the door opens up, your in a debate with the other person that may be as futile as building a relationship based on weather talk. However buiding a relationship is important, but if your goal is to win them for Christ, something as powerful as Scripture will have to come into play.



hammurabi -> RE: "Proving" God (5/8/2008 6:40:26 AM)

quote:

I was in a discussion in another forum where titled “God, does it exist?” I made a post using biblical references and got numerous posts back saying I can’t use the Bible to prove my point? I replied back If you are asking a believer to not use the Bible to prove God then you have to ask the unbeliever to use the Bible to not prove God. This was un-welcomed. Ha! Any advice on how to witness or defend your faith without the use of the Bible? Can it be done?


Even if the Bible were inerrant, free of all contradiction, perfectly contiguous with our reconstructions of history (excepting the supernatural or mythical discourse it contains), it doesn't follow that God exists; it follows that the Bible is an accurate recording.

Using the Bible to prove the existence of God is a circular argument; as it using the argument that belief in God constitutes proof of God's existence for any subject other than that who has the experience.

However, if you claim that Biblical inerrancy is a precondition of any belief in God, or if your claim is structured: "God's existence is contingent upon the Bible's inerrancy," then the non-believer can use your claim to provisionally disprove the existence of God. Of course, your argument is built upon false claims to begin with, so you're endlessly circling and kicking around a massive linguistic mess.

quote:

"If you are asking a believer to not use the Bible to prove God then you have to ask the unbeliever to use the Bible to not prove God."


Why does this follow? You're saying that "If a believer cannot use the Bible to prove God's existence, then the nonbeliever must use the Bible to disprove God's existence." You can exclude the Bible from the debate by any number of means. Could you explain this?

If you were able to argue something such as "If condition X is true (Biblical claim), then it necessitates the existence of Y (God)," you might be able to construe God's existence from Biblical claims, but I highly doubt any such argument exists or could exist.

There's a few ways to witness your faith. Obviously, praxis. Less obviously, you have to carefully construct arguments which (1) allow you to discuss supernatural entities; (2) predicate properties of these entities; (3) form adequate connections between the logic of language and the existentiality of the entities and their respective ontologies; (4) use rules of inference and demonstration to show how the supernatural entity would, could, exist. You could always start with Aquinas, who essentially does this; Boethius does too. Kant restricts our abilities to discuss metaphysical abilities; Wittgenstein tells us to shut up, the Neo-Thomists...You get the point



txparent -> RE: "Proving" God (5/20/2008 1:35:59 AM)

This thread is a little old so I don't know how active it is anymore, but I'll throw my 2 cents in...

When you try to engage a non-believer in a discussion about the existence of God, it's probably not the best idea to begin by using a characteristic of God (his Word) to try and prove He exists. If they don't believe in God, they won't believe in his characteristics. Instead, it seems the discussion should go through these phases:

1. Is there a God? Here we mean a general eternal and omnipotent being, not necessarily the God of the Bible. To deal with this, we can use:
- Logic/Philosophy
- Science/Archaeology
2. If there is a God, has He revealed himself to us?
3. If he has revealed himself to us, how has he done so? In other words, which revelation is the real revelation? Here, we discuss the validity and reliability of the Bible.
4. If the Bible is God's word, what does it say for us? Here is where we get into a study of what God's word says to us, what it calls us to do, etc.

Ultimately, bringing God's word into a discussion about whether God exists is probably the last thing you should be doing. I realize that going through the first 3 steps are much more challenging, but it's also very enlightening to ask yourself those questions and come up with logical answers. I had the same question awhile back and it led me to studying science and philosophy. I can confirm that believing in God is logical based on what I've learned. Here are the books that helped me:

1. There is a God by Anthony Flew
2. What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza
3. The Language of God by Francis Collins
4. The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder
4. Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder
5. The Probability of God by Stephen Unwin
6. The Mind of God by Paul Davies
7. The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath
8. Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis
9. Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
10. The Case for... series by Lee Stroebel

I'll warn you in advance...many of these people aren't Christians in the traditional sense. They are mostly philosophers and scientists who have used logic, reason and science to prove to themselves (and hopefully others) that there is really a Creator behind this universe. They deal with the first question I posed above. Dealing with questions 2-4 would require additional reading.



hellohellohi -> RE: "Proving" God (5/20/2008 3:12:15 PM)

Hello, I'm posting on the heels of txparent again.

Great topic! I say what if God is proven? What if all the evidence is thoroughly collected, annotated, and peer-reviewed? What if in the distant future of civilization 99.9% of scholars and lawyers have established it beyond a shadow of a doubt? Well, we would all certainly then be heirs to the proposition "God exists." But would then doubt be erased?

Is carrying a proposition in your mind the same as carrying God in your heart? How about carrying a proposition in your heart?! What that feels like -- and I wonder if this is the purpose of a mantra, not to focus the mind on a truth but to CLEAR the mind of all thought?, leaving nothing but OM, er, um !?? -- what this feels like is banality. The words lose their flavor. Like that strange feeling we probably all know when a word seems to get detached from its meaning and we just have its sound or its enunciation in our mouths -- and it just sounds weird?? (You know what I'm talking about?)

What if, as the evidence suggests, that a Creator is as likely true as another physically palpable proposition, in the vein of "I am made of flesh and blood." Desrcartes once wondered whether in fact he was made of flesh and blood or whether he wasn't just dreaming. However, in dreaming, one often has a suspicion that things aren't quite right, and when one awakes, one can sigh a relief (if it was a bad dream), as one immediately notices the differences between waking reality and dreaming. However, humans can doubt even the most firm of facts. So what if God is proven? We could still doubt the proposition -- or wonder at its meaning. Stranglely, one can even find oneself struck by the reality or power of one's dreams, and begin to wonder if they aren't in fact something real -- or more real. So too, a secular, propositional thinker may find himself drifting away from established facts. It is then that they may seek for what IS REAL.

There is much to say!

What if Jesus was here today and he told you, I am the Son of God. What, with all the Messianic would be Jesuses...?? The only way to know would not come from any proof. Jesus may come again with miracles, but don't get suckered by a magician! If the Anti-Christ is to come as well... anti- I am told, translates as "mirror" or "image." So be prepared to be fooled (or to not be!)



FolkSingerBlues -> RE: "Proving" God (5/22/2008 7:19:15 AM)

It is impossible to "empirically" prove the existence of God.
And apparently that was exactly part of his plan.

That doesn't mean that there is not "proof" that God exists, it's just not "empirical".

Before some of your heads explode the same thing can be said about love.

Love can not be "empirically" proven.



hellohellohi -> RE: "Proving" God (5/22/2008 8:46:04 AM)

yeah, that's kind of what i meant.

you could say that Jesus was "proof" of God AS WELL as love, but, still, many doubted! So, it's just not the kind of "proof" that some (the rebellious, proud, or scared, for example) may be looking for.



SpiritSeeker -> RE: "Proving" God (5/22/2008 7:47:30 PM)

Five ways by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically:

1) THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT:
We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved
by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to
avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is
God.

2)THE NOTHING IS CAUSED BY ITSELF ARGUMENT:
For
example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by
his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a
first cause, which is God.

3)THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being
and
go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since
time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things
existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could
there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus
there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is
eternal, which is God.

4)OBJECTS IN THE WORLD HAVE DIFFERING DEGREES OF QUALITIES SUCH AS GOODNESS:
But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.

5)THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN):
Things
in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move towards
its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an
intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is
God.



MusicianDad -> RE: "Proving" God (5/23/2008 7:58:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpiritSeeker

Five ways by which God's existence can be demonstrated philosophically:

1) THE UNMOVED MOVER ARGUMENT:
We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved
by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to
avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is
God.

2)THE NOTHING IS CAUSED BY ITSELF ARGUMENT:
For
example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by
his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a
first cause, which is God.

3)THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being
and
go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since
time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things
existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could
there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus
there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is
eternal, which is God.

4)OBJECTS IN THE WORLD HAVE DIFFERING DEGREES OF QUALITIES SUCH AS GOODNESS:
But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.

5)THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN):
Things
in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move towards
its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an
intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is
God.


What he said.



txparent -> RE: "Proving" God (5/24/2008 1:23:20 AM)

I agree with the statements above that we can't absolutely "prove" God's existence. In fact, we can't absolutely prove anything if you get right down to it. I've never met any of you...to me, you're just words on a website. How do I "know" that you exist? It takes a leap of faith. The same thing can be said for everything.

The only thing we can prove is that I exist (I think, therefore I am). But I can only prove that I exist at this exact moment. Even though I have memories, those may be falsely implanted memories, thus I have to have faith that those memories aren't lies.

So I agree completely that we can never prove 100% the existence of God (or of Shakespear or Napoleon or my parents, etc). The alternative we are left with is to gather evidence and make a judgment as to what is most likely to be true. It's the same as in a court of law. You gather evidence and decide someone's guilt or innocence "beyond a reasonable doubt". That should be our standard as well. I believe the evidence is very compelling that God exists. I believe this evidence, once gathered and analyzed, proves the existence of God "beyond a reasonable doubt".

But I completely agree with you that we can never prove anything 100%



MusicianDad -> RE: "Proving" God (5/24/2008 8:46:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: txparent

It's the same as in a court of law.


If life were a court of law, atheists would be the people who thought O.J. was innocent. [:D]



LBolt -> RE: "Proving" God (5/24/2008 9:08:24 AM)

quote:

If life were a court of law, atheists would be the people who thought O.J. was innocent.


LOL!

That would be an interesting thread, "was OJ Simpson innocent or guilty![:'(]

Just kidding!

In all honesty, Lee Strobel might be a good book for them to read, however it is God who opens the eyes of the blind and the deaf ear. The Bible speaks of the visible things speaks of the reality of the visible realm and that creation itself is a testimony of His existance.

There is a term in the Bible used for those who say there is no God found in Psalm 14, I don't think atheist would like to read it!
LOL!



txparent -> RE: "Proving" God (5/25/2008 10:59:45 AM)

Regarding OJ (and TOTALLY off-topic, btw), I prefer how Norm McDonald put it on Saturday Night Live after the "not guilty" verdict came in. He said "well it's official, murder is now legal in the state of California."



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI