Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Proof - What is it?

* * * * * 1 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
36 replies to this topic

#1
larryt

larryt

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts
In discussions on this forum is it appropriate to claim that something is proved, as in

It has been proved that you are wrong.


I proved my point.


Is not this a statement of pride? What does it take to prove something? Is a concensus proof?

In Science a Theory is not proof. And when it is finally proven to be true sometimes the theory is overturned. To offer proof is taking a position on a topic, but to claim that your proof is better than someone elses may or may not be true. The only one to judge will be the Lord in cases of Theology. No one here or anywhere in the church has an absolute corner on what is completely correct about the Bible.

I bring this up because this is not appropriate to label someone as wrong -

Because we proved it.

Or label someone as anything as no one can really know what someone else thinks for sure.

I think it is pride for someone to claim they proved anything.

So what does it mean to "PROVE" something.

#2
Guest_man_*

Guest_man_*
  • Guests

So what does it mean to "PROVE" something.


That depends on what you're trying to prove.

#3
Guest_man_*

Guest_man_*
  • Guests

Proof - What is it?



Evidence to backup a claim.

#4
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts
There are different standards of proof that people will appeal to. In our courts of law, something need only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Other people want absolute, undeniable proof beyond the shadow or any possibility of doubt, which is something no one can provide. Ususally people demand an unreachable standard of proof to avoid having to face up to inconvenient truths.

For the person unwilling to be convinced, no standard of proof would ever suffice.

#5
LOVE SONGS

LOVE SONGS

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,130 posts
A study of the facts of a subject is its Proof .




#6
larryt

larryt

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts

In Science, you don't prove something. In Science, there is no such thing as proof. You prove things in Math class but that isn't proof.

I had an atheistic Physics professor and he taught us this. How far do you want me to discuss this?

Hi Chuckt
I think I remember the definition of a Theory in science as: Something that can be proved or disproved. I think I brought up the idea that in science some theories are thought to be proved and later proved to be the opposite or disproved.

My point here at WB is that some people resort to "we proved it" to declare someone else as wrong when in reality all that has been done is providing a point of view and back up evidence to support their possition. I try to present a point of view and state my reasons for believing why I believe that point of view. It does not matter if I prove anything. I am not trying to. I have found in my walk with the Lord that I know even less now compared to the whole than I did 25 yrs ago. I have changed my view on many things and will probably change my view again when the Spirit illuminates my understanding.

How far do we go with this???? As far as needed to bring us all to the knowledge of Christ without some of the anger and hatred that has been coming out in some of the posts.

Grace & Peace.
LT

#7
larryt

larryt

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts

Proof - What is it?



Evidence to backup a claim.

If all you do is present the evidence you have is that proof, have you proved something and can you claim that you proved it.
Grace & Peace
LT

#8
larryt

larryt

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts

There are different standards of proof that people will appeal to. In our courts of law, something need only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Other people want absolute, undeniable proof beyond the shadow or any possibility of doubt, which is something no one can provide. Ususally people demand an unreachable standard of proof to avoid having to face up to inconvenient truths.

For the person unwilling to be convinced, no standard of proof would ever suffice.

I agree with your definitions and analysis. Will these standard apply to you as with myself and others?

#9
enoob57

enoob57

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,183 posts

In Science, you don't prove something. In Science, there is no such thing as proof. You prove things in Math class but that isn't proof.

I had an atheistic Physics professor and he taught us this. How far do you want me to discuss this?

In all things there 'IS' continuance... this is the proving of the infinite exist- as we with begin we are witnessing Him Who 'IS'
without begin... Love, Steven

#10
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts


There are different standards of proof that people will appeal to. In our courts of law, something need only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Other people want absolute, undeniable proof beyond the shadow or any possibility of doubt, which is something no one can provide. Ususally people demand an unreachable standard of proof to avoid having to face up to inconvenient truths.

For the person unwilling to be convinced, no standard of proof would ever suffice.

I agree with your definitions and analysis. Will these standard apply to you as with myself and others?


The point I am making is that different people use different standards. Some people are more reasonable in how they use the term. In many cases, people are too free and loose with the word proof. I prefer to use the term "demonstrate" or I claim that to have "evidence" for my point rather than claim that I have proven something unless I can satisfy that standard.

The problem lies with people who apply an unlrealistic standard as to what constitutes genuine proof. To a reasonable person, it can be proven that man has been to the moon. But, for some people who are bent to rejecting such proof, there would be no proof that anyone could provide that they would accept. Not because it is not provable, but because they are bent on preserving their unbelief and will employ any measure no matter how absurd or unreasonable.

#11
larryt

larryt

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts



There are different standards of proof that people will appeal to. In our courts of law, something need only be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Other people want absolute, undeniable proof beyond the shadow or any possibility of doubt, which is something no one can provide. Ususally people demand an unreachable standard of proof to avoid having to face up to inconvenient truths.

For the person unwilling to be convinced, no standard of proof would ever suffice.

I agree with your definitions and analysis. Will these standard apply to you as with myself and others?


The point I am making is that different people use different standards. Some people are more reasonable in how they use the term. In many cases, people are too free and loose with the word proof. I prefer to use the term "demonstrate" or I claim that to have "evidence" for my point rather than claim that I have proven something unless I can satisfy that standard.

The problem lies with people who apply an unlrealistic standard as to what constitutes genuine proof. To a reasonable person, it can be proven that man has been to the moon. But, for some people who are bent to rejecting such proof, there would be no proof that anyone could provide that they would accept. Not because it is not provable, but because they are bent on preserving their unbelief and will employ any measure no matter how absurd or unreasonable.

Again I agree with your points on different standards and too loose with the word "proof." In our judgement of how reasonable a person is, is subjective in many cases. Luther was deamed unreasonable when he would not recant but that did not make him wrong in what he believed. And how we define a realistic standard can at times be subjective because of our own predjuces. Personally I believe that man has been to the moon. On the other hand I have seen the evidence that would seem to contradict this and is leave open the possibility that this may be a great hoax. In cases of spiritual things it is not a matter of reasonableness. It is a matter of God opening the eyes of the blind so they can see.

Which brings me back to my question to you.

Will these standard apply to you as with myself and others?

Not because it is not provable, but because they are bent on preserving their belief and will employ any measure no matter how absurd or unreasonable. I changed something in your statement. People are not bent on preserving their unbelief so much as preserving what they believe.

Could this apply to you as well as anybody here?

#12
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts

Not because it is not provable, but because they are bent on preserving their belief and will employ any measure no matter how absurd or unreasonable. I changed something in your statement. People are not bent on preserving their unbelief so much as preserving what they believe.


Yes, you changed something in my satement, but in doing so you altered the point I was making. People are bent on preserving their unbelief, which is why they would reject any proof and will do so even if it means being absurd. Because at that point is not about right and wrong. It is not about truth. It is about rejecting anything that forces them to change their point of view or to admit that they have been operating on the wrong information.

I don't think they are preserving belief. They preserving their unbelief in the face of strong evidence that keeps them from having to accept the truth.

Could this apply to you as well as anybody here?


No, because I don't resort to absurdity. I don't resort to irrationality in order to avoid having to admit I am wrong. I have, in the past, demonsrated that I am able to admit when I have been wrong and have done so on a number of occasions.

#13
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,642 posts
Proof that God loves me and is in my life?

How many instances of answered prayer do you want?

Except of course do you believe me that it was answered prayer, or coincidence, or that I am flat out lying?

My family and my church know it is God working as they have seen the proof. You have not, so it is a bit, as Shiloh discusses, "subjective".

And I don't really care if anyone believes me or not. I have acknowledged God as my Lord and Savior, and thanked Him for the answered prayer, and that is enough. (except that testifying to answered prayer edifies the church body..)

#14
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts

The need for Certainty in anything else but Christ is a defect of the natural (carnal) mind.

Nonsense.

The Holy Spirit teaches us and guides us in all things. All things! Our reason, past experience, and studies are nothing, and usually a hindrance, to truth. We are not to lean on our own understanding in anything, no matter how plain and simple it may seem.

The Bible doesn't mean that we are suppopsed to ask God what we are to have for breakfast or what color shirt to wear today. You taking that further than what was intended in Scripture.

The Holy Spirit has knowledges of all things, past, pressent, and to come. It does not need sources and sites, yet the natural-mind does demand it. This does not mean we do not research or ignore reports or automatically doubt scientific theory or methodology: we listen to all that is presented and surrender to guidance.

God created the natural mind and its processes. There is nothing wrong with that. I doubt quite a bit of stuff that other people's natural minds create and try to foist on me.

Many bizarre things are attributed to the direction and sanction of the Holy Spirit, the Crusades are a fine example, as is the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. Or the church that burns the Koran. Or those that see Obama as the antichrist. Or those that protest military funerals. What elements must be present for such discernment to be seen as reliable?

Really... who is attributing those things to the Holy Spirit??? Seems you are assigning values to others without warrant or justification.

Only one, really: love. Scripture defines this love and the Father exemplifies this love, as this is His nature. Christ is the incarnate description of this love. Matters of fact and matters of truth are wholly different. Love alone sees the reality of truth and love alone dictates how we are to live in the world. Those questions of worldly facts can be quibbled forever. We can go from source to source to source and find what we want or confusion. Which then begs the question, how important are they?

You really have a problem with people who think for themselves and expect facts to be supported and verified before simply accepting liberal dogma don't you??? It would be so much easier if you could post your ideas without these pesky people expecting you to back up your ideas with factual, corroborating data, right?

#15
enoob57

enoob57

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,183 posts

Proof that God loves me and is in my life?

How many instances of answered prayer do you want?

Except of course do you believe me that it was answered prayer, or coincidence, or that I am flat out lying?

My family and my church know it is God working as they have seen the proof. You have not, so it is a bit, as Shiloh discusses, "subjective".

And I don't really care if anyone believes me or not. I have acknowledged God as my Lord and Savior, and thanked Him for the answered prayer, and that is enough. (except that testifying to answered prayer edifies the church body..)

All for the purpose to encourage us to lay aside our own ideas of living and take up His that comes moment by moment into a day... Love, Steven

#16
enoob57

enoob57

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,183 posts




You really have a problem with people who think for themselves and expect facts to be supported and verified before simply accepting liberal dogma don't you??? It would be so much easier if you could post your ideas without these pesky people expecting you to back up your ideas with factual, corroborating data, right?


"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3

on These edifying notes I went on to the next thread :) As I did I wondered every word we are to account for :o Love, Steven


I think very often the very things that bother us the most in other people are things that we are also the most guilty of.

Yes I deleted my post just a moment before you replied to it :) I thought I added nothing to the thread! Love, Steven

#17
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts


You really have a problem with people who think for themselves and expect facts to be supported and verified before simply accepting liberal dogma don't you??? It would be so much easier if you could post your ideas without these pesky people expecting you to back up your ideas with factual, corroborating data, right?


"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3

LOL, nice try, but no dice. Sloppy application.

#18
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,829 posts




You really have a problem with people who think for themselves and expect facts to be supported and verified before simply accepting liberal dogma don't you??? It would be so much easier if you could post your ideas without these pesky people expecting you to back up your ideas with factual, corroborating data, right?


"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3

on These edifying notes I went on to the next thread :) As I did I wondered every word we are to account for :o Love, Steven


I think very often the very things that bother us the most in other people are things that we are also the most guilty of.

Which is what people often resort to when they can't come up with a substantive response. It's a variation on the old childish quip: "takes one to know one."

#19
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,642 posts
There is something sad when as Christians, who should be taking a biblical stance, we take a conservative or a liberal stance.

I have seen it quite a bit in a few threads lately.

Tell me, anyone? Did Jesus take a liberal or a conservative stance, or did He take a Godly one?

I suppose if you spoke to a disciple or a Roman official (in the main), the answers would be different.

Having opened that can of worms, I try to retire gracefully......

#20
enoob57

enoob57

    Royal Member

  • Soapbox - Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,183 posts
Strong indicators toward a never ending resource... :brightidea: God is Spirit and His creation declares Him... Love, Steven




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network