Burden of proof

[Fovezer]

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.

Can science be wrong? Yes, but scientist keep going back and over their information and tests until they get a bulletproof answer. Well, we know a method is reliable if, when repeated, it gives the same result. Consistancy=Reliability.

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

So does a historically correct book mean it is divinely inspired?

Well, first, what do you believe about how the Bible should be read? Do you think it should be read all literally, all figuatively, or a combination? Like, do you believe the flood was a global flood or the Earth was created 6000 years ago? A literal interperation is easily refuted. I have always said, the best way to be sure of your beliefs are to question them.

[Guest One Love Christ]

Can science be wrong? Yes, but scientist keep going back and over their information and tests until they get a bulletproof answer. Well, we know a method is reliable if, when repeated, it gives the same result. Consistancy=Reliability.

However, how do we know if the result is correct? Is it not possible to continue getting the same incorrect result?

So does a historically correct book mean it is divinely inspired?

No, but historical correctness bolsters a book's credibility in the claims it makes.

Well, first, what do you believe about how the Bible should be read? Do you think it should be read all literally, all figuatively, or a combination? Like, do you believe the flood was a global flood or the Earth was created 6000 years ago?

Not being a student of Hebrew, I haven't yet examined the text in its original language. I'm also not afraid to announce my ignorance in science...I'm not sure where I stand on how old the Earth is, but could you tell me where the argument comes from that Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? That seems to be thrown at Christians very frequently.

A literal interperation is easily refuted.

Care to do so?

I have always said, the best way to be sure of your beliefs are to question them.

I'm with you there.

[Fovezer]

However, how do we know if the result is correct? Is it not possible to continue getting the same incorrect result?

By using other tests also.

No, but historical correctness bolsters a book's credibility in the claims it makes.

Yes, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Not being a student of Hebrew, I haven't yet examined the text in its original language. I'm also not afraid to announce my ignorance in science...I'm not sure where I stand on how old the Earth is, but could you tell me where the argument comes from that Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? That seems to be thrown at Christians very frequently.

I can't remember exactly, but, some guy interpreted the events of the Bible and caluculed it to be 6,006 years, or some thing like that. There are also many other dates people through out too, like 12,000 years is another one.

Care to do so?

Not at all, but it would be easier if you could narrow it down to one topic, please.

I'm with you there.

Good! You're one of the few here who see it that way.

[Guest One Love Christ]

QUOTE

However, how do we know if the result is correct? Is it not possible to continue getting the same incorrect result?

By using other tests also.

Other tests with the same goal in mind and the same possible margin for error?

QUOTE

Edited December 8, 2003 by One Love Christ

[Fovezer]

Other tests with the same goal in mind and the same possible margin for error?

Everything has a different margin of error, but by using multiple test multiple times, you should only be let at one conclusion.

You start with the assumption that I believe the canon as we have it today is inspired and necessary to belief in God and Christ. What would you define as extraordinary evidence?

I am sorry if my assumption is wrong, but many believe the canon as is. Estaordinary evidence would be solid evidence that there is a diety.

So one of the more common evolutionist arguments is based on one guy's calculation? I'm not sure how old the earth is, and in the grand scheme of things, that seems a negligible point in comparison to whether the man Y'shua who walked the earth approximately 2000 years ago was God Incarnate or "just a man." That probably seems like a copout answer, but I can't tell you or anyone how old the earth really is. The only being who can do that is God.

How is that an evolutionist argument? That is what a large majority of Young-Earth Creationists believe. See, many who believe the literal interpretation of the Bible feel that if every thing in the Bible isn't true in a literal sense, then they feel that they can't believe in God. No, not a copout answer at all. It that does make you rethink your whole beliefs, then good. And science can answer how old the Earth is, because they have.

I'm sorry; I didn't mean to be vague. Actually, I was opening it up to discussion on whatever front you want to tackle me on. I'm saying, "Hit me with your best shot." *wink*

*edit* I'm not sure I'll be able to do your best shot justice, but hey, I might as well jump in all the way...

Well, I am already having a discussion with Christians in two other threads (" Proof in the existance of God" and "DOES GOD BELIEVE IN ATHEISM?"), so feel free to join in on them. It would be easier.

-=Fovezer=-

[Guest One Love Christ]

I am sorry if my assumption is wrong, but many believe the canon as is. Estaordinary evidence would be solid evidence that there is a diety.

With this, we return to the original point of this post.

How is that an evolutionist argument? That is what a large majority of Young-Earth Creationists believe.

Sorry, I worded that wrong. Many people throw that at Christians to make it apparent that they're not well versed in science.

See, many who believe the literal interpretation of the Bible feel that if every thing in the Bible isn't true in a literal sense, then they feel that they can't believe in God.

And many do not. Nowhere in the Bible does it say a person must believe in the Bible and it's literal truthfulness to be a Christian.

No, not a copout answer at all. It that does make you rethink your whole beliefs, then good. And science can answer how old the Earth is, because they have.

It doesn't make me rethink my whole belief system...if my belief in an omnipotent God were shaken by the age of the earth, it wasn't strong enough to call it a belief in the first place. It just seems to me that the age of the earth seems a negligible (and unverifiable) point in the grand scheme of the greatness of God. Also, who's to say that being a Young-Earth Creationist is necessary to being a Christian? It's possible to be an Old-Earth Creationist, an Old-Earth Evolutionist, or anything else that's out there...but if a person believes that Christ was God manifested on Earth and chooses to follow Him in his or her life, that person is a Christian.

[Fovezer]

With this, we return to the original point of this post.   

Yes

Sorry, I worded that wrong. Many people throw that at Christians to make it apparent that they're not well versed in science.

No, not Christians, Young-Earth Creationists(YEC) who are Christians. Ask any YEC, and they will probably say around 6000 years ago. It is not meant to insult because it was a YEC who came up with that age! And, in general, YEC are not well versed at all in science, no offense.

And many do not. Nowhere in the Bible does it say a person must believe in the Bible and it's literal truthfulness to be a Christian.

I know that, and I am glad you see it that way, but there are still many Christians who believe that.

No, not a copout answer at all. It that does make you rethink your whole beliefs, then good. And science can answer how old the Earth is, because they have.

It doesn't make me rethink my whole belief system...if my belief in an omnipotent God were shaken by the age of the earth, it wasn't strong enough to call it a belief in the first place. It just seems to me that the age of the earth seems a negligible (and unverifiable) point in the grand scheme of the greatness of God. Also, who's to say that being a Young-Earth Creationist is necessary to being a Christian? It's possible to be an Old-Earth Creationist, an Old-Earth Evolutionist, or anything else that's out there...but if a person believes that Christ was God manifested on Earth and chooses to follow Him in his or her life, that person is a Christian.

I'm sorry, I meant to say "It does NOT make you rethink..."

But the age of the Earth is not unverifiable. It has been verified to be ~4.6 billion years old.

I never said you had to be a YEC to be a Christian. Where are you getting this from?!?! I know that you can be all those things and still be a Christian. I never said you couldn't.

[Guest One Love Christ]

I never said you had to be a YEC to be a Christian. Where are you getting this from?!?! I know that you can be all those things and still be a Christian. I never said you couldn't.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. What I got out of it was, "This applies to a lot of Christians, therefore it applies to you also." It's true you never said a person couldn't, but a common misconception (albeit, one not shared by yourself) is that all Christians are YEC's.

However, we've deviated from the main point of the post. I believe the burden of proof rests with God himself. For us to be able to say, "Here, here's all the proof you'll ever need," eliminates all need for faith. It allows us to be equal with God, grasping the concepts of His mysteries far beyond our capabilities to accept. If we are able to be equals, the concept of "God" is incorrect. This gives us 2 possibilities:

1) the concept of "God" is incorrect

2) humans cannot prove God's existence

Sorry again to assume things.

[sagz4Christ]

It allows us to be equal with God, grasping the concepts of His mysteries far beyond our capabilities to accept. If we are able to be equals, the concept of "God" is incorrect. This gives us 2 possibilities:

1) the concept of "God" is incorrect

2) humans cannot prove God's existence

Sorry again to assume things.

Greetings, brother!

I want to shed some light on just a few things here, to help clear up a misunderstanding.

I agree with your thoughts up to a point. However, when you say that the proof of God makes us eqaul is where I happen to take pause. I will help clarify what I mean by that.

You said that His mysteries are far beyond our capability to accept. I would use the word understand. I can accept, and indeed, that is what faith is, the acceptance of the mysteries of God. We cannot understand them, so we accept them by faith.

Here is an example:

Job 36

26 How great is God-beyond our understanding!

The number of his years is past finding out.

You said the concept of God is beyond our understanding. I agree. Our finite minds cannot grasp the idea of eternity...Love without limit...or unmeasurable grace. I think that every time we try to describe Him, we build some kind of box, or another, because our vocabulary does not include the descriptive words needed to convey the proper image. All we can do is to LIVE the truth....for actions speak louder than words.

As a result, I would write your conclutions as follows:

1. the concept of God is beyond description.

2. humans need more than emperical evidence to prove God's existence.

I enjoy reading what you are saying, and it is giving a great springboard to my next topic with our friend. Maybe you can join us in the other thread as well!

~serving Christ in faith

[Guest One Love Christ]

sagz4christ, thanks much for your input! By the way, it would be "Greetings, sister."

Also, to add to what you said, which was very wise, I define proving something and knowing something in two different ways. In the ways of Ivan "Vanya" Moiseyev, "Sir, they may speak about not being able to prove God, but there is no question about knowing Him."