Proof of GOD, (without attacking Old Earth or evolution)

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

You didn't spell out the whole definition given in the link. I don't see here what is defined there. Merriam Webster states thus

1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive

2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Equivocal:

: having two or more possible meanings

: not easily understood or explained

 

 

See it ?          :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

 

 

You know, you have a very rare opportunity here....

 

Get with LFA and Equivocate, Equivocation. 

 

 

The fact you cannot grasp 2+2=4 is not really my fault at all.  I have not waivered at all in my use of the terms evidence or proof.  The problem lies in that you do not understand the difference between the two.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

================================================================================

 

Finally you...

 

Finally, eh?  You mean finally from the beginning?  But since Joe illuminated the Fact....Time for Damage Control. 

 

I started arguing this exact fact with Tolken and Sheniy from Jump Street.

 

Proof on the other hand precludes the need for faith.

 

Then you head right back down the Same Old Road....I just don't get it.  Call Joe ASAP!!  You've seen this before....

 

(Matthew 14:25-33) "And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.  {26} And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.  {27} But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying,  Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.  {28} And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  {29} And he said,  Come.  And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.  {30} But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.  {31} And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him,  O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"  (Matthew 14:32-33) "And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.  {33} Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

 

Let's try this step by step:

 

Peter walked on the WATER because of PROOF.   Jesus was Standing on The Water....100% AAA+ Proof

 

Then Peter was afraid and began to sink.  While still having the Proof in Front of Him....100% AAA+ Proof

 

Then the LORD said..."O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" He LOST FAITH with the 100% AAA+ Proof Still in Front of Him.

 

 

So does Proof still Preclude the need for Faith????

 

The problem still seems to lie in the now undeniable fact that you do not understand the difference between evidence and proof.  Which would explain your fear of posting

 

And you continue even after the Babe Ruth (Home Jersey) Duck Hat example?

[Guest]

 

Beloved There Is No Equivocation About It

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

God Is True

 

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

 

Whether Or Not One Believes

 

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

 

 

================================================================================

 

Finally you...

 

Finally, eh?  You mean finally from the beginning?  But since Joe illuminated the Fact....Time for Damage Control. 

 

I started arguing this exact fact with Tolken and Sheniy from Jump Street.

 

Proof on the other hand precludes the need for faith.

 

Then you head right back down the Same Old Road....I just don't get it.  Call Joe ASAP!!  You've seen this before....

 

(Matthew 14:25-33) "And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.  {26} And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.  {27} But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying,  Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.  {28} And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  {29} And he said,  Come.  And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.  {30} But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.  {31} And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him,  O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"  (Matthew 14:32-33) "And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.  {33} Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

 

Let's try this step by step:

 

Peter walked on the WATER because of PROOF.   Jesus was Standing on The Water....100% AAA+ Proof

 

Then Peter was afraid and began to sink.  While still having the Proof in Front of Him....100% AAA+ Proof

 

Then the LORD said..."O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" He LOST FAITH with the 100% AAA+ Proof Still in Front of Him.

 

 

So does Proof still Preclude the need for Faith????

 

The problem still seems to lie in the now undeniable fact that you do not understand the difference between evidence and proof.  Which would explain your fear of posting

 

And you continue even after the Babe Ruth (Home Jersey) Duck Hat example?

 

 

each time you post the story of Peter you make my case for me.  Peter's "faith" was based upon proof instead of faith in Jesus.  So when his proof was not as strong his faith went with it.  He had little faith because he always need proof, which is why his faith was so weak.  There is a correlation between "faith" built upon human proofs and a faith that trust God despite a lack of proof.  When did he falter while walking on the water? (I helped you out and made it big and pretty).   Then when he was safe and his is "proof" again Peter's "faith" was strong.  Then when Jesus was arrested and his proof was taken from him he lost his faith and denied Jesus.  How can you not see the correlation here.  If you put your faith into your own understandings (which is what your "proof"s are) then you will falter just like Peter did.  That is why God wants our faith to rest on Him, not on some human proof.  I will pray for you that you will leave behind your human proofs and have faith in the Lord God almighty instead of your own wisdom. 

[LookingForAnswers]

So Enoch, let me ask you point blank...do you understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof"?

[Tolken]

LookingForAnswers -  So Enoch, let me ask you point blank...do you understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof"?

 

Strong’s concordance defines “hypostasis” as - a setting or placing under, thing put under, substructure, foundation, that which has a foundation, is firm, has actual existence.  As the Missler slide in post #81 notes “faith is the essence of a future reality”. Future reality equates quite clearly to “things hoped for”. If the reality is future the questions arises how can it be proof in the present? Hope can only be defined with future fulfillment as the goal. Evidence then is that which upholds, supports, is a substructure, is foundational to faith, the proof is future. Yet that same evidence then provides a reasoned support for faith as opposed to a belief/faith/trust without any justification.

 

It might be noted that “hypostasis” is rendered in the Latin as “substantia”. It has the same meaning, and used in philosophy not as a physical object but as “that which stands under” – “that which upholds”.  Descartes based both his argument for God (ontological) and Cogito ergo sum on this - mind is thinking, a thinking substance. Though thoughts/ideas/concepts are not physical but they are substantive.

 

Further, we can make a clear distinction between now and then. We have no proof of any Biblical miracles whether Peter walking on water, water into wine, miraculous healings, parting of the red sea, or even the resurrection of Christ. By Faith we aver the truth of the Biblical record, the truth of God’s existence, the truth of the resurrection while  knowing that the reality will only be affirmed/made reality in the future.  

Edited March 24, 2014 by Tolken

[jerryR34]

 

 

Peter walked on the WATER because of PROOF.   Jesus was Standing on The Water....100% AAA+ Proof

 

You are missing the point of the whole story.  Peter seeing Jesus standing on the water was not proof he, Peter, could walk on water - it was proof Jesus could.  It still required faith to step out of the boat.  You seem to get so wrapped up in minutiae and trying to be right that you miss the big picture.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

=========================================================================

 

 

I'm still waiting for you to define them and stop equivocating....from 20 posts ago.  

 

I told ya, you were already in Checkmate when you typed your first sentence....even without reference to this:

 

(Romans 1:20) "For 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:"

 

So there is "evidence" that is "unseen"....so much so, that GOD will hold them accountable and they will be "without excuse."

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Peter walked on the WATER because of PROOF.   Jesus was Standing on The Water....100% AAA+ Proof

 

You are missing the point of the whole story.  Peter seeing Jesus standing on the water was not proof he, Peter, could walk on water - it was proof Jesus could.  It still required faith to step out of the boat.  You seem to get so wrapped up in minutiae and trying to be right that you miss the big picture.

 

 

 

================================================================

 

You're stumbling concerning my position.

 

Jesus standing on the water was Proof for Peter and the Apostles that he was the Son Of GOD.  And is confirmed by:

 

(Matthew 14:33) "Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

 

 

It still required faith to step out of the boat.

 

Yes, that's My WHOLE POINT.  Thanks 

 

Absolute 100% AAA+ Proof does not Preclude the need for Faith.

[Enoch2021]

If Peter saw Jesus, then he was never going on faith. Faith is in things unseen/without proof. The reason Peter sunk in the water is because reason took over him. He knew the wind was dangerous as he had previous evidence/experience it is destructive. Thus, Peter feared what he knew was dangerous. Jesus standing on water gave Peter no assurance he could also, as Peter had no proof he could. Proof for Peter was that the wind was greater than Jesus due to it's destructive qualities, thus common sense/previous evidence/experience he had that the wind is destructive took over and he sunk.

 

Nobody walks on water in the first place. Or christians lack even a mustard seed of faith, seeing none of them have walked on water.

 

 

=========================================================

 

 

If Peter saw Jesus, then he was never going on faith.

 

Then why did Jesus say......{Matthew 14:31} And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him,  O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

 

 

Faith is in things unseen/without proof.

 

Wrong.  That's "Blind" Faith.  In Fact, they are mutually exclusive.

 

And "Unseen" doesn't mean "Unprovable".  See multiple examples in this thread.

 

And you have MAJOR PROBLEM with your characterization, Here....

 

(Romans 1:20) "For 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:"

 

 

The reason Peter sunk in the water is because reason took over him.

 

That's not what Jesus Said.... (Matthew 14:31) And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him,  O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

 

In other Words, Peter had the "Proof"....but he ultimately lost "FAITH".

 

Confirming my WHOLE POINT/POSITION....

 

100% AAA+ Proof does not Preclude the need for Faith.

 

Jesus standing on water gave Peter no assurance he could also

 

 

Except for the Creator of The Universe standing there, and saying "COME".

 

 

Proof for Peter was that the wind

 

Proof of what?  That the wind was the wind?

 

Nobody walks on water in the first place.

 

Except for Jesus Christ and Peter(temporarily until his FAITH faltered)