Burden of proof

[sagz4Christ]

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

*boy do I feel like a heel....*

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry about that....*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."

I see. Very good. I can get behind that statement 100%!

~serving Christ in faith

[Fovezer]

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.

No hard feelings.

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. 

You can say the burden of proof is also with your god, and I can agree with that, but if you make the statement that there is a god, then the burden of proof is on you. Why would it be so bad to know a god exists? So you don't need faith. What's wrong with that? I know, God wants to to have faith in him, but, if he we know he exists, how are we equal? We couldn't create things, perform miracles, banish people to eternal torture, etc. If the burden of proof lies with god, as you say, then why doesn't he provide any proof he exists?

-=Fovezer=-

[Guest One Love Christ]

Why would it be so bad to know a god exists? So you don't need faith. What's wrong with that?

Faith=trust; without faith in something, there is no healthy relationship. It is necessary to trust God...just to be shown that He exists is worthless, without allowing yourself to trust Him and let Him take over your life.

"...he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

I know, God wants to to have faith in him, but, if he we know he exists, how are we equal? We couldn't create things, perform miracles, banish people to eternal torture, etc.

"Who has understood the mind of the Lord...?" "He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom." The only being who can understand God is God himself. To prove God's existence would involve proving everything that makes Him God.

If the burden of proof lies with god, as you say, then why doesn't he provide any proof he exists?

That depends on what kind of proof you seek. I believe that sending Himself to earth in the form of His Son, Christ, 2000 years ago was proof enough for me.

For God to create or provide something, this also implies the lack of that thing. Darkness is the lack of light. Evil is the absence of good. Proof implies a lack of proof. God created light; the absence of it is darkness. God created good; evil is the absence of such good. God created proof that He exists; uncertainty or disbelief is a lack of this. That may make no sense to others, and I apologize in advance if it doesn't.

Love in Christ!

-One Love

[artsylady]

Hi One-Love! Welcome. Didn't notice your thread until today!

Fovezer:

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.

You do realize that the theory of evolution is CONSTANTLY changing. When new evidence is found, the theory has to be re-written. This happens almost daily.

And regarding your statement about YEC's not knowing very much about science, you do know that most Creation scientists are YEC's and that they number in the 10's of thousands in the US alone. You're trying to say scientists don't know much about science? That's like me saying evolution scientists don't know much about science. They do, but their presumptions are wrong.

[artsylady]

Fovezer: And regarding your scientific 'tests', here's one using geology, for example.

If you want to have something - a piece of rock for example, dated at a lab, when you mail in your sample, you have to tell them where you found it and what age you presume the item to be. Without that, they say they can't accurately date the item. It's all about presumptions. It's not as cut and dried as you think.

[Guest shadow2b]

-HELLO ONE LOVE CHRIST

[Guest One Love Christ]

Wow! Big flashy lights just for me! Thanks much all!

[Fovezer]

Faith=trust; without faith in something, there is no healthy relationship. It is necessary to trust God...just to be shown that He exists is worthless, without allowing yourself to trust Him and let Him take over your life.

"...he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." 

No, faith is not equal to trust. Faith is believing in something with no proof. So, again, why would not having faith be a bad thing? If know he exists, and then it makes it ALOT easier to trust him, wouldn't you think?

"Who has understood the mind of the Lord...?" "He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom." The only being who can understand God is God himself. To prove God's existence would involve proving everything that makes Him God.

No, it wouldn't. Proving a god exists does not have anything to do with proving how he became god, just that he exists. Also, I never said understand him, just show he exists.

[For God to create or provide something, this also implies the lack of that thing. Darkness is the lack of light. Evil is the absence of good. Proof implies a lack of proof. God created light; the absence of it is darkness. God created good; evil is the absence of such good. God created proof that He exists; uncertainty or disbelief is a lack of this. That may make no sense to others, and I apologize in advance if it doesn't.

I don't understand how this relates to my question.

[Fovezer]

You do realize that the theory of evolution is CONSTANTLY changing.  When new evidence is found, the theory has to be re-written.  This happens almost daily. 

And regarding your statement about YEC's not knowing very much about science, you do know that most Creation scientists are YEC's and that they number in the 10's of thousands in the US alone.  You're trying to say scientists don't know much about science?  That's like me saying evolution scientists don't know much about science.  They do, but their presumptions are wrong.

Yeah, that is what science does, and in saying that you are showing that evolution changes to fit all the current data, unlike YEC, which conforms evidence to fit its theory. At least you said something good about evolution

And regarding your statement about YEC's not knowing very much about science, you do know that most Creation scientists are YEC's and that they number in the 10's of thousands in the US alone.  You're trying to say scientists don't know much about science?  That's like me saying evolution scientists don't know much about science.  They do, but their presumptions are wrong.

Scince only about 5% of scientists are YECs, I highly doubt there are "10's of thousands" YEC scientists. 40% are theistic evolutionists and 55% are strict evolutionists (no diety caused it). So now tell me whose presumptions are wrong. The 95% that believe evolution, or the 5% that are YECs? This is from a Gallup poll. "Scientists are far more likely to reject the notion that a deity was involved in any scenario for explaining how human and life originated. Only 5% subscribe to a literalist, biblical explanation, 40% accept some kind of theistic evolution, and 55% hold to a strict evolutionary explanation without any participation for a deity."

[Fovezer]

Fovezer: And regarding your scientific 'tests', here's one using geology, for example.

If you want to have something - a piece of rock for example, dated at a lab, when you mail in your sample, you have to tell them where you found it and what age you presume the item to be. Without that, they say they can't accurately date the item. It's all about presumptions. It's not as cut and dried as you think.

Now this is false. You can't possible tell someone how old a rock is. Testing does not require this informantion.