Burden of proof

[Guest hdamaall]

I was just thinking about this today, but we, as Christians, are always trying to "prove" God exists in sceintific terms, but should we really be having to do this? I mean if "the world" requires that we prove God exists b4 it actually fully beleives , then doesn't that mean the burden of proof is on us? I don't get it, b/c that's completely backwords according to most of the world. I mean take the courtroom for example. who has the burden of proof? the accuser, or plaintiff, we have a statement in our constitution that says you are innocent untill proven uilty. wouldn't the world...be the accuser? It makes perfect sense to me, I mean if we were to follow what they say then it's not our job to prove he exists, it's their job to prove that he doesn't exist. oh well, like I said, just a thought

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings hdamaall,

In the days of Paul and the Apostles, the "burden of proof" landed among them. This is the task of the Evangelist. Most of the "proof" came with what the Jews held sacred already - the Torah, in fact the whole Old Testament. As Philip did when he was sent to the Eunuch, he began teaching him from the sacred scriptures and how they pointed to the Messiah who was to come and that Jesus was the one through whom God would and did reveal Himself to the world.

In another instance, Paul. (I'm sure was searching for a means to get the attention of the Greek people), noticed one of their idols was given the name "the unknown god". He used this as an introduction to the people saying that he knew the God of whom it spoke.

We need never have to defend ourselves, but we should know the Word and be led by the Holy Spirit to give it when it is required of us. Jesus once told His disciples:

Matt 10:19-20 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

This will fulfill:

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[Guest shiloh357]

One the worst things we can do, is to tell people that we can "prove" the existance of God. We cannot, and we should never say that. We can give intelligent reasons for our faith. We can demonstrate that faith through a righteous life, but we cannot "prove" the existance of God.

When the word "proof" is used, it automatically establishes a certain level of expectancy in the mind of the hearer. The hearer is expecting us to provide something that is so evident, that it's reality cannot be questioned. Depending upon the person who is listening to you, their standard of proof may be different than yours. Often, those who challenge the Bible are demanding a level of proof that cannot be provided. Our courts of law apply a standard of proof that goes "beyond a reasonable doubt." Those who challenge the Bible however, want complete, absolute, 100% unrefutable proof. That is something that no one can provide, and they know that. It only demonstrates that they are not as "open" to the truth as they claim, and are unfair and disingenuous in their approach to the debate. Such people should just be ignored allowed to wallow in their foolishness.

On another thread, there is one poster, Fovezer, who is engaging Christians over this whole "proof" issue. He is just like the person I described above. Personally I think he is playing a game with Christians, and they are falling for it. That is just my opinion. When someone asks for "proof" of the existance of God, they are not sincere. If they were interested in finding God, then the Word of God would have some merit in their eyes. Like others I have talked to, Fovezer rejects the Bible, and is demanding extra-biblical "proof" which he also has no intention of accepting. I pointed this out on that thread.

Do not let yourselves be hooked into a fruitless debate with people like that. Never tell someone that you have "proof" of the existance of God. As long as you maintain the position that this is a matter of faith, then those who say your faith is wrong, and unfounded, will have the burden of proof.

[Guest One Love Christ]

God and His existence cannot ever be proven without destroying Christianity. Proof would eliminate all need for faith, which is an integral part of Christianity.

As shiloh said, God can be shown, but never proven. (my paraphrase)

By the way, hello everyone!

-One Love Christ

[sagz4Christ]

God and His existence cannot ever be proven without destroying Christianity. Proof would eliminate all need for faith, which is an integral part of Christianity.

As shiloh said, God can be shown, but never proven. (my paraphrase)

By the way, hello everyone!

-One Love Christ

Hello!!!

Welcome to Worthy Boards!!!!!

We hope you enjoy your stay with us!

[Fovezer]

God and His existence cannot ever be proven without destroying Christianity. Proof would eliminate all need for faith, which is an integral part of Christianity.

As shiloh said, God can be shown, but never proven. (my paraphrase)

By the way, hello everyone!

-One Love Christ

Of course you can't prove a god exists, but if one did exist, then shouldn't the evidence point that way? But even if you could prove a god, or the Christian god more specifically, did exist, there are still people out who would reject it, even if it were overwhelmingly in favor of it. Kind of like how young earth creationist reject all the evidence that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. So how would it destroy Christianity? And are you saying that it is better to ignore science and believe a 2000 year old book?

Oh, and hello and welcome, and if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm the resident atheist.

-=Fovezer=-

[Guest One Love Christ]

If God and Christ were ever proven, it would destroy Christianity because following Him would simply be making a logical decision, similar to pointing upwards and saying, "Up is this way." There are always those who choose not to believe in something, even if it can be proven. I'm with you on that one.

Thank you for the warm welcome!

[Fovezer]

If God and Christ were ever proven, it would destroy Christianity because following Him would simply be making a logical decision, similar to pointing upwards and saying, "Up is this way." There are always those who choose not to believe in something, even if it can be proven. I'm with you on that one.   

Thank you for the warm welcome! 

But isn't that what you should do? Make logical decisions? Are you also saying that it is illogical to believe in a god? Hey, that's what I got out of it.

Enjoy your stay!!

[Guest One Love Christ]

Also, I'm not saying we shouldn't believe science. However, would you agree with me that science is far from infallible? Yes, we can use science to prove something, but how can we know for sure if the method of proof is reliable? That may be a very ignorant statement, but that's always baffled me.

I choose to believe the "2000 year old book" for two reason. Logically, because portions of it have been corroborated by other historians of the same time period. Experientially, I can say that I have had no reason to doubt its truth. However, if you would like to give me one, I would welcome it. I do need to make sure I can defend what I believe.

Thanks again!

-One Love

[Guest One Love Christ]

Believing in God is a paradox, that while supported by logic, also requires a tossing aside of logic. Logically, to me it makes sense to believe that there is something bigger than ourselves. However, actually believing in that "higher being" involved my throwing aside all earthly logic and realizing that accepting this would mean accepting that I couldn't reason everything out.

This probably sounds very random and uneducated, but I'm relatively new at this.