Proof of God

[apothanein kerdos]

In order for your theory to work, God needs to be in the aquation from the very start. If you're talking to an athiest, God is not in the equation because the athiest does not believe in God, therefore He can't be taken out of the equation. You can't take out what isn't there.

No He doesn't. You look at the athiest, you tell them they have taken God out of the equation (or that He has never been there before), you then point to how they live. If they love ANYTHING in this world, they must provide a reason as to why. They must provide a reason as to their intelligence, the problem of man,

the moral necessity, the epistemological necessity, the dilema of man, the autonomy of man, etc. They have to provide answers for things the logically cannot provide answers to. By removing God from the equation, they have made their lives impossible to live according to their beliefs. If we are nothing more than highly evolved animals with no purpose to our lives, if man is nothing but a machine (lower story) and emotions are not part of man (upper story), then how do they justify having emotions? The fact is, you don't have to have God in the equation to prove Him. You merely point out that all of their human experience doesn't add up to verfiable, logical, provable proof of their experience.

I"m done arguing this point with you because it is quite obvious you're:

1) In over your head on this and refuse to admit it

2) Not getting it at all

3) Refusing to get it

Absolute proof of God's existance requires physical proof. The same holds true for denying His existance. No one can prove that He doesn't exist.

That's absurd. For one, what I am presenting is physical proof because it has to be observed and logically looked at. It looks to the physical world and attempts to explain it via the absense of God. Becaues logic not only cannot explain the physical world, but it absolutely fails to and cannot, when we put God into the equation, it suddenly works. This is physical proof.

Now if you mean physical proof as God's footprint, a picture of Him, etc, then you're simply on the absurd side of proof. 70% of things proven in a court room are based off logical interpretations of the physical proof and very rarely off the physical proof itself.

In other words, this steak knife has no finger prints, yet we know it belongs to the accused. We know that he was at the victim's house at three in the morning. We know the victim died at 3:30am. We know the accused did not get home until 4am. There is no physical proof, such as a picture, DNA, fingerprints, etc, to prove that the accused actually killed the victim. However, from logical analysis of the proof, we're able to deduct that he did kill the victim.

It is the same with God. We don't have His picture or absolute physical proof, but we do have logical reasnoning of the proof we have before us. It is because of this that we're able to accept the fact God created everything and that He does truly exist.

You talk about moral laws. In some parts of the world rape is an everyday thing. Look at some of the laws in the middle east.

Moral laws don't prove His existance.

I already explained that certain societies do use such things as murder and rape, yet these societies still hold some form of a moral construct. That is what I am advocating. Even if their morals are against God (this is to be expected of societies that denied God) they still hold some form of a moral construct. Where did this moral construct evolve from and why are humans the only species on earth to have evolved this moral construct? With God out of the equation, such as the athiest does, there is no explanation.

Try this...take God out of the equation and try to prove He exists. You can't. There is nothing on this earth that can be used to prove His existance. Many things point to His existance but none of it is proof positive of His existance. It can't be done. If it could, there would have been no reason for Christ to be born. You can't deny what you can see.

All of it is proof positive of His existence. That's the point I'm making. I have taken God out of the equation, and when you do this, there is no explanation for the universe. There is no explanation for the reason man is man. There is no explanation for our manishness. If nothing on this earth can be used to explain God, then He didn't create it. For one, we are made in God's image, therefore man himself is proof of God existing. Furthermore, in the book of Job God spends His entire response appealing to Creation to show His power...I guess you need to educate God that His own creation proves nothing about Him.

You mention a leap of faith. Everyone who believes has to take that leap. An athiest doesn't have too because he doesn't believe. Without faith you need physical proof.

This is an existential belief left over from Keirkgaard. You're telling me that the only way to have proof is to experience God. The problem with this is that it isn't faith. For one, we know that God has communicated with men in the past, therefore they had physical proof yet still had faith. As Schaeffer writes:

"The God who created man in His own image communicates true truth about Himself. Therefore, this need not be thought of as only an existential experience or contentless 'religious ideas.' We have true knowledge, for as the Scriptures say so simply and overwhemingly, when God wrote the Ten Commandments on stone, or when Jesus spoke to Paul on the Damascus road in the Hebrew language, a real language was used subject to grammars and lexicons, a language to be understood." (Francis, Schaeffer, "The God Who is There", pg. 104).

He goes on to have us imagine a book that has been mutilated, living just one inch of printed matter on each page. Thus a person could try to read the book, but would have to interject their own mystery into that book (leap of faith). Imagine we found the missing pages hidden somewhere and placed them in the story. The story now makes perfect sense, we know what was being said, and we have the option to either accept or reject the story.

In his analogy, the book represents man without God. We are missing pages, we are living a story that we cannot explain unless we put God in the picture. In fact, Schaeffer explains:

"Rationalistically and autonomously man could not give a proper answer on the basis of the portion of th ebook that remaind. Without the pages which were discovered, man would never have had the answer. Neither do we have a leap of faith, because the pieces match up in a coherent whole over the whole unified field of knowledge. With the propositional communication from the personal God before us, not only the things of the cosmos and history match up, but everything on the upper and lower stories matches too: grace and nature; a moral absolute and morals; the universal point of reference and the particulars, and the emotional and aesthetic realities of man as well. (Francis Schaeffer, "The God Who is There," pg. 120, emphasis mine)

In other words, because we have this knowledge, because we have the complete story on why man is the way he is, there is no leap of faith. We understand, we have proof. God communicated with words to epeople at some point in time, thus your idea that, "proof is the lack of faith" falls flat on its face when we see all of the Bible people had proof of God...yet had faith as well. Faith, in both the Greek and Hebrew, does not mean trusting in what you do not see. It means, literally, "to trust in what you know." emuwnah, 'emuwn, and 'aman all mean to trust and to remain close to that trust. THat is the Hebrew portion, showing that faith, in Hebrew, means to have trust in God. In the Greek we have pistis which again, means to place firm trust in. Yet it comes from the Greek word peitho which means to persuade using evidence and likewise to have confidence in something. When we look at the Bible, never does it tell us to believe simply because we are supose to believe. It never tells us to take a leap of faith. It always tells us that faith is trust, specifically in the things we know.

Anyway, Tess, Mike2, and Cellshade, thank you for understanding and explaining.

[Guest man]

You still haven't proved anything. Philosophy doesn't prove anything. You can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a Spirit out there that is in control of everything. It just can't be done.

Telling someone to look around and explain how it all came to be if not for God is weak. I could say evolution, or aliens have a hand in all this. I could come up with countless reasons why things are the way they are and not include God in any of them.

When you start speaking philosophy to someone, they're going to come back and say show me. Just because we have laws doesn't mean God made them. There are laws that permit abortion, did God make that? There are people who are trying get laws passed that allow 2 men or 2 women to married, is that one of God's laws too?

Look here...I know what you are saying. I'm not doubting that philosophy plays a big part in this but to an unbeliever it means nothing. Your philosophy works if you're talking to a christian or someone with an open mind, but to someone who totally rejects the idea of God, your philosophy means nothing.

I don't know.....if you want to quit this, we'll end it here. However, you haven't proven anything. So do what you will, but don't think I'm backing down because I'm not. I'm not intimidated by your intelligence and that of your friends. All that says is that you have more schooling than I do, it doesn't make you smarter.

[apothanein kerdos]

Before I even respond....how old are you? This has nothing to do with intelligence, I just want to know what age group I'm dealing with.

[Guest man]

man, please don't take this offensively, but I think you may be in over your head. You don't seem to be following along. Please take to heart the advice that has been given to you in other topics where you have defended your belief that pursuing deeper knowledge and understanding is basically unnecessary. Again, I don't intend to hurt your feelings, but some of your posts definately show a need for you to do some further study, at least some reading. I'd encourage you greatly to read some of the books that have been suggested previously (Schaeffer, Wittmer, Strobel, Lewis, Moreland, just for starters). Scripture teaches us that those who walk with the wise will become wise. I'm hoping that these kinds of discussion offer you evidence that indeed, pursuing biblical knowledge is important (especially if you intend on having intelligent discussions about topics such as origins and God's existence). These types of discussion will require a higher level of thinking, that is only possible if a person applies their mind and develops the skills.

Again, I'm not trying to offend you or put you down. Just taking this opportunity to point out that you might need to reconsider your belief that doctrinal/theological training isn't necessary...especially if you intend on engaging in discussions such as this.

You're in the wrong thread, but as long as you're here I have a question.

What does all of your knowledge tell you about sin? What does your Greek and Hebrew tell you about knowingly committing sin? How does God feel about that? ( in Greek and Hebrew? )

[apothanein kerdos]

man, please don't take this offensively, but I think you may be in over your head. You don't seem to be following along. Please take to heart the advice that has been given to you in other topics where you have defended your belief that pursuing deeper knowledge and understanding is basically unnecessary. Again, I don't intend to hurt your feelings, but some of your posts definately show a need for you to do some further study, at least some reading. I'd encourage you greatly to read some of the books that have been suggested previously (Schaeffer, Wittmer, Strobel, Lewis, Moreland, just for starters). Scripture teaches us that those who walk with the wise will become wise. I'm hoping that these kinds of discussion offer you evidence that indeed, pursuing biblical knowledge is important (especially if you intend on having intelligent discussions about topics such as origins and God's existence). These types of discussion will require a higher level of thinking, that is only possible if a person applies their mind and develops the skills.

Again, I'm not trying to offend you or put you down. Just taking this opportunity to point out that you might need to reconsider your belief that doctrinal/theological training isn't necessary...especially if you intend on engaging in discussions such as this.

You're in the wrong thread, but as long as you're here I have a question.

What does all of your knowledge tell you about sin? What does your Greek and Hebrew tell you about knowingly committing sin? How does God feel about that? ( in Greek and Hebrew? )

Don't derail my thread. Go to your "knowledge" thread and post in there.

[Guest man]

Before I even respond....how old are you? This has nothing to do with intelligence, I just want to know what age group I'm dealing with.

I don't see where age matters.

[Guest man]

man, please don't take this offensively, but I think you may be in over your head. You don't seem to be following along. Please take to heart the advice that has been given to you in other topics where you have defended your belief that pursuing deeper knowledge and understanding is basically unnecessary. Again, I don't intend to hurt your feelings, but some of your posts definately show a need for you to do some further study, at least some reading. I'd encourage you greatly to read some of the books that have been suggested previously (Schaeffer, Wittmer, Strobel, Lewis, Moreland, just for starters). Scripture teaches us that those who walk with the wise will become wise. I'm hoping that these kinds of discussion offer you evidence that indeed, pursuing biblical knowledge is important (especially if you intend on having intelligent discussions about topics such as origins and God's existence). These types of discussion will require a higher level of thinking, that is only possible if a person applies their mind and develops the skills.

Again, I'm not trying to offend you or put you down. Just taking this opportunity to point out that you might need to reconsider your belief that doctrinal/theological training isn't necessary...especially if you intend on engaging in discussions such as this.

You're in the wrong thread, but as long as you're here I have a question.

What does all of your knowledge tell you about sin? What does your Greek and Hebrew tell you about knowingly committing sin? How does God feel about that? ( in Greek and Hebrew? )

Don't derail my thread. Go to your "knowledge" thread and post in there.

She posted, I replied.

[apothanein kerdos]

Alright, then I'll respond in full. Age matters in your level of learning. The younger the are, the more I need to bring up to try and help you understand. Instead, since you want to be obtuse about this, I'll treat you like you've already studied the same subject I have.

You still haven't proved anything. Philosophy doesn't prove anything. You can't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a Spirit out there that is in control of everything. It just can't be done.

You haven't substantiated this. YOu keep saying, "you're wrong" but fail to even show how. I can prove it, I have proven it, it is up to the athiest to accept it or not.

Telling someone to look around and explain how it all came to be if not for God is weak. I could say evolution, or aliens have a hand in all this. I could come up with countless reasons why things are the way they are and not include God in any of them.

No, you couldn't. If you use the excuse of evolution, then I ask how evolution explains away the problem of emotions, love, epistimology, etc. If you said aliens, I would ask what led these aliens to become personable, to place us here, how did they develop life, what created the aliens, etc. Any answer you come up with can be absolutely destroyed because it does not and cannot provide and adequate response.

When you start speaking philosophy to someone, they're going to come back and say show me. Just because we have laws doesn't mean God made them. There are laws that permit abortion, did God make that? There are people who are trying get laws passed that allow 2 men or 2 women to married, is that one of God's laws too?

Once again, as is becomming par for the course, you're missing the point. The very fact laws exist shows a moral construct. There is no explanation for such a moral construct under naturalistic or materialistic philosophy. It not only fails to provide the reason for the construct, it simply cannot and seeks to disprove the construct exists.

Look here...I know what you are saying. I'm not doubting that philosophy plays a big part in this but to an unbeliever it means nothing. Your philosophy works if you're talking to a christian or someone with an open mind, but to someone who totally rejects the idea of God, your philosophy means nothing.

I've seen many athiest come to know Christ because of this method. It provides an inadequacy in their worldview. Why do they love if there is ulatimately no reason for their love. Their beliefs cannot be lived within reality, therefore their beliefs are false. The only philosophy in the world that can be lived in reality is Christianity...which makes it more than a philosophy (though it has philisophical elements).

I don't know.....if you want to quit this, we'll end it here. However, you haven't proven anything. So do what you will, but don't think I'm backing down because I'm not.

I want you to back out of it because you don't know what we're talking about. Instead of trying to learn you're sitting there in arrogance thinking you understand when you don't. There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification...but to argue what you have never studied or even understand is absurd.

Look at what Fiosh did...instead of comming out saying, "Nope, you can't do it" she began to argue it from an atheistic point of view. Much more is accomplished in this way.

[apothanein kerdos]

man, please don't take this offensively, but I think you may be in over your head. You don't seem to be following along. Please take to heart the advice that has been given to you in other topics where you have defended your belief that pursuing deeper knowledge and understanding is basically unnecessary. Again, I don't intend to hurt your feelings, but some of your posts definately show a need for you to do some further study, at least some reading. I'd encourage you greatly to read some of the books that have been suggested previously (Schaeffer, Wittmer, Strobel, Lewis, Moreland, just for starters). Scripture teaches us that those who walk with the wise will become wise. I'm hoping that these kinds of discussion offer you evidence that indeed, pursuing biblical knowledge is important (especially if you intend on having intelligent discussions about topics such as origins and God's existence). These types of discussion will require a higher level of thinking, that is only possible if a person applies their mind and develops the skills.

Again, I'm not trying to offend you or put you down. Just taking this opportunity to point out that you might need to reconsider your belief that doctrinal/theological training isn't necessary...especially if you intend on engaging in discussions such as this.

You're in the wrong thread, but as long as you're here I have a question.

What does all of your knowledge tell you about sin? What does your Greek and Hebrew tell you about knowingly committing sin? How does God feel about that? ( in Greek and Hebrew? )

Don't derail my thread. Go to your "knowledge" thread and post in there.

She posted, I replied.

She didn't mention Greek and Hebrew.

Keep it up and I"ll ask that you be removed from the thread. I'm here to discuss very important matters and everyone seems to be picking up on that except for you.

[Guest man]

man, please don't take this offensively, but I think you may be in over your head. You don't seem to be following along. Please take to heart the advice that has been given to you in other topics where you have defended your belief that pursuing deeper knowledge and understanding is basically unnecessary. Again, I don't intend to hurt your feelings, but some of your posts definately show a need for you to do some further study, at least some reading. I'd encourage you greatly to read some of the books that have been suggested previously (Schaeffer, Wittmer, Strobel, Lewis, Moreland, just for starters). Scripture teaches us that those who walk with the wise will become wise. I'm hoping that these kinds of discussion offer you evidence that indeed, pursuing biblical knowledge is important (especially if you intend on having intelligent discussions about topics such as origins and God's existence). These types of discussion will require a higher level of thinking, that is only possible if a person applies their mind and develops the skills.

Again, I'm not trying to offend you or put you down. Just taking this opportunity to point out that you might need to reconsider your belief that doctrinal/theological training isn't necessary...especially if you intend on engaging in discussions such as this.

You're in the wrong thread, but as long as you're here I have a question.

What does all of your knowledge tell you about sin? What does your Greek and Hebrew tell you about knowingly committing sin? How does God feel about that? ( in Greek and Hebrew? )

Don't derail my thread. Go to your "knowledge" thread and post in there.

She posted, I replied.

She didn't mention Greek and Hebrew.

Keep it up and I"ll ask that you be removed from the thread. I'm here to discuss very important matters and everyone seems to be picking up on that except for you.

No need to run to George. I will leave on my own.

Tess' post didn't mention Greek or Hebrew but from the wording you can pick up on what she's getting at.

Anyway...if you didn't want me here why didn't you ask me to leave? I really don't respond well to threats. But because I'm starting to irk you, I will leave.

p.s. You still haven't proven anything.