Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Does God exist ? origin of God - metaphysical reality » God:Why it`s an irrational demand to ask proofs of his existence

God:Why it`s an irrational demand to ask proofs of his existence

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin
Why it`s an irrational demand to ask proofs of God's existence

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence

Atheist: Provide verifiable evidence for any God, demonstrating his existence.
Answer: If there would be no God, then anything would/should be possible, arbitrary, and nothing would be impossible. Without God, nothing can be established, imposed, and secured. The laws of physics could be instantiated, and disappear at any moment. God is ultimate and singular and that means to be the source of all possibilities.

Neither view, theism, nor materialism can be proven. Science will never demonstrate how reality came about. We can only look at the science available to us and find adequate philosophical explanations based on the evidence. The Scientific method nor any other will never be able to demonstrate God's existence or the claim that the material universe is all there is. Historical events cannot be repeated. From what we know, we can decide which is the bigger leap of faith - which materialism as well requires. Any view, conclusion, and position, is based on a leap of faith. It is just that - a leap of faith.  Upon my understanding, there is extraordinary evidence FOR a creator, therefore, theism requires the smallest leap of faith and that points to a creator. In my view, it is the best hypothesis based on evidence. Once that happens,  the truth seeker can choose to investigate which creator best fits the bill. Without God's hiddenness, we would not have any significant freedom. Even those that hate God would be unable to fully live according to their wishes; much like a criminal would find it intolerable living in the police station. God stays hidden to a degree, He gives people the free will to either respond to His tugging at their hearts or remain autonomous from Him. There is enough light for those who desire to find him, and enough darkness for those that prefer to live autonomously to HIM. If you prefer being an atheist, God values your free will more than His desires for you. If you are really after truth, then have an open mind and follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if you don’t like the conclusion.

Matthew 7:8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
But when you seek, it's actually not, that you will find the truth. But the truth will find you.

Revelation 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Once He revealed Himself to me, He convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that He is who He said He is and it all made sense.

Without God's hiddenness we would not have any significant freedom. Even those that hate God would be unable to fully live according to their wishes; much like a criminal would find it intolerable living in police station. If God stays hidden to a degree, He gives people the free will to either respond to His tugging at their hearts or remain autonomous from Him. There is enough light for those who desire only to see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition. If we can make God an object of our observations we have demoted God to the level of a thing in creation.  We who have been wooed into a covenantial loving relationship with God, find comfort in is omnipresence and His omniscience. But for those who resist the love of God, those attributes would be nothing less than hell on earth.

If you were an intelligent software living in a virtual world of bytes, how would you show other intelligent software that humans exist? You can’t come out of the computer. Humans would need to resort to software in order to communicate with you. In other words, you will never ever be capable of interacting with humans directly. You would see another software that looks probably like you controlled by humans and you would need to trust that software is a human. God has the same limitation; he cannot get into creation as he exactly is. It is not possible for him. He needs to rely on using physical matter to interact with us. 

The quest of origins is not solved by empirical science or proofs, like demonstrating God, but by probability or plausibility. It is an absurd restriction, and this kind of burden of proof cannot be met by both sides, since historical facts cannot be recreated, like the origin of life, or biodiversification.  Furthermore, if God actually is God, he would not comply with silly demands, and would not permit to be forced to do anything.

Matthew 16:  The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus, wanting to trick him. So they asked him to show them a miracle from God.
2 Jesus answered, “At sunset, you say we will have good weather because the sky is red. 3 And in the morning you say that it will be a rainy day because the sky is dark and red. You see these signs in the sky and know what they mean. In the same way, you see the things that I am doing now, but you don’t know their meaning. 4 Evil and sinful people ask for a miracle as a sign, but they will not be given any sign, except the sign of Jonah.”

In other words, the right epistemological method is abductive reasoning, a logical inference to find the simplest and most likely conclusion from the observations.
The origin of the physical laws and universe and its fine-tuning cannot be demonstrated to originate by cosmic evolution. Despite over half a century of attempting to recreate the origin of life, every attempt has failed. The hypothesis of chemical evolution is a big scientific failure. None of the basic building blocks of life have EVER been synthesized in the lab, even with intelligent, human intervention.  Primary speciation and an evolutionary transition zone to organismal complexity and form, generating a multitude of different animals and various kinds of life-forms, have also never been observed to be possible. The origin of language, sex, consciousness, and objective morality is also a mystery.  

Rejecting faith in God because neither his existence nor his creative action can't be studied directly, but believing in Standard Cosmogeny, abiogenesis, and evolution is a clear contradiction and the application of a double standard. While God as a creator is rejected, unguided random events as a better explanation of origins are adopted by default, despite there being no empirical evidence whatsoever for both. That's an obvious contradiction in terms.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence

Atheist: Right now the only evidence we have of intelligent design is by humans. Why would anyone assume to know an unknowable answer in regards of origins?
Reply: Many atheists have made a career out of making silly requirements based on ignorance, rather than first creating a solid epistemological framework of inquiry, and then asking relevant questions. Abiogenesis is how to test the materialism claim and it fails. Almost seventy years of experimental attempts of recreating life in the lab and not even the basic building blocks have been recreated. Evolution has been tested and it fails. 70,000 generations of bacteria, and all they got, are bacteria. No hint of a transition zone to a new organismal limb or improvement of complexity. Fail.
The existence of God is inferred just like all historical science is. This is basic logic and critical thinking but some atheists have a mind like a sieve.
God's existence is inferred by many criteria, like abductive reasoning, and eliminative inductions, but many persevere on nonsensical demands like asking for demonstrations of God's existence.
How does someone “test” for the widely credited multiverse? They can’t, don’t even try. Honest physicists know this.
The existence of God is as valid as multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, macroevolution, and numerous other improvable theories.
Many atheists are like the kid stuck in high school who never grows up or moves on. Like a windup echo chamber.



There is more to reality than the world of our senses perceives.

Demand: No one has ever produced any verifiable evidence for any God, demonstrating his existence. All religions make that claim for their specific God. Well, I want some proof, hard verifiable proof.
Answer:  Every worldview, without exception, is a faith-based belief system, consisting of a set of statements the holder adopts as being true. Starting from this view, we can dispense with the foolish notion of "proof," as some are so quick to require (as though they have such proof for the worldview they currently hold). Instead of "proof" in the absolute sense, we proceed with examining the available evidence, which should point with confidence to the worldview that best accounts for that evidence.

This is one of the most common demands of Atheists and mentioned as a reason for unbelief until the burden of proof is met. All which such demand demonstrates is the lack of epistemological sophistication of the unbeliever. Usually, this challenge goes hand in hand with the claim that " There is no evidence of God's existence ". What they want to say however is, that there is no empirically verifiable proof.

When an atheist, an agnostic, or someone holding a mix of agnosticism and atheism makes the claim that there is no proof of God's existence, he immediately and implicitly admits there is no proof that the natural world is all there is, either. Otherwise, he would say: We know the natural world is all there is. Here is the verifiable evidence. For that, however, he would have to be all-knowing, which we all obviously aren't. He chooses that second option based on no reason at all.

Atheists commonly ask and say:  Show me God...No god has been demonstrated to exist. It's the same as asking "show" me what you think. We all have thoughts and memories..we can talk about them..but we cannot "show" someone else what we actually think. (Not the same as measure brain activity when we think)

We need to endorse a worldview that makes sense, and is a consequence of a carefully chosen and elaborated methodology of an epistemological framework, and applied to do a consistent, correct to the case research, and coming to meaningful, and the most accurate possible conclusions in regards of origins and reality. There are several ways, like rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, authority, and revelation. Empiricism is a cornerstone of the scientific
method. Empiricism, in philosophy, is the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. Can or should we use the scientific method and empiricism alone where the scientific method is the primary epistemology for truth claims? This approach is based on observations
of the world, but philosophy and theology are a priori rejected outhand. That is one of the wrong approaches that many unbelievers in God adopt.

Unbelievers are skeptical that God exists beyond and above this space-time continuum,  based on lack of empirical proofs, but endorses the default position that there is no God, despite the fact that this isn't verifiable either. God's existence is logically inferred and obvious. There is no alternative to God. Luck or chance isn't a potent causal agency of almost anything besides, maybe, chaos. The universe is not eternal but began to exist. Since nothing can't do something, as for example cause a universe into existence, there was always being, and the cause of the universe must have been a creator.

Professor Ulrich Becker** (High energy particle physics, MIT):
"How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any answer ever given."

Why does God not simply show himself to us ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1422-show-why-does-god-not-simply-show-himself-to-us

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence




Can you demonstrate that your mental state of affairs really exists? That you are a real person, and not a preprogrammed artificial intelligence seeded by aliens?  How can I know that your cognitive faculties including consciousness, perception, thinking, judgment, and memory,  reasoning, and thoughts,  imagination, recognition, and appreciation, feelings and emotions are real? Can you demonstrate that your qualia, the substance of your mind is real? Could it be, that aliens from a distant planet use some unknown communication system and use your eyes, ears, brain, etc, that you are a programmed bot, and all your answers are in reality given by them? You can't demonstrate this not to be the case.

C.S.Lewis: “Granted that Reason is prior to matter and that the light of the primal Reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come, by observation and inference, to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole [i.e. materialism], then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”

One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

“To find the metaphysical beliefs…governing scientific research…it would have been enough to speak of one belief, the belief in a personal rational Creator. It was this belief, as cultivated especially within a Christian matrix, which supported the [scientific] view for which the world was an objective and orderly entity investigable by the mind because the mind too was an orderly and objective product of the same rational, that is, perfectly consistent Creator.
Dr. Stanley Jaki, Templeton Prize winner, Distinguished Professor of physics, Seton Hall University




Being cannot come from non-being.
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another.
Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.
That being is God.

Being cannot come from non-being. Contingent existence is evidence of a necessary Creator. But not everybody ( is willing ) to see it.
Romans 1.19 - 23 What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Asking for proofs of Gods existence is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is.  To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides.  Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.

The probability of God is not to be dismissed. Nobody can prove with reason anything except potentialities, probabilities and possibilities. Reason is not the science of reality when it ventures beyond the scope of physical. It can only imply.

The seeker must also be willing to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. He needs to be willing to put all his prejudices and bias aside as much as possible, and permit an entirely and exclusively rational approach, based on scientific reasoning and logic, that is, doing the observation, elaborating a hypothesis, testing when possible, and getting well-based and rationally justifiable conclusions. When dealing with the observation of the natural world, the question is, what mechanism explains best the origin of X. That is not the same as to ask, how something works, which is what empirical science deals with. That helps and advances the question of how something came to be when its mechanistic ( physicochemical ) working is known, and what contributes to that. Back in Darwins time, 150 years ago, there was no knowledge about the complexity of the biochemical reality, intracellular action and molecular world. Today, we have advanced understanding on that, and every day that passes, that knowledge adds up.  

The first question to answer is not which God, but what cause and mechanism best explains our existence. There are basically just two options. Either a creative conscious intelligent supernatural powerful creative agency above the natural world acted and was involved, or not. That's it. All answers can be divided in this two basic options and categories. While the atheist affirms, no God was required, the theist claims, God is necessary. Some atheists have argued that the can be many explanations, we just do not know them yet. I disagree. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

The next step a seeker needs to elucidate is: What signs point to design, rather than non-design? What can be clearly attributed to the action of a conscious intelligent agency? ( or agencies - plural ? ) Then he has to move forward to actually understand how our natural world works. The better understanding and education, the better. Unfortunately, this is a huge hurdle, and many are too lazy to spend time to actually understand the natural world and prefer to see what fits best what they want, and then search for who provides the answers they want to be true ( bias is a big factor contributing to self-delusion ). That is a common approach by atheists. They prefer to rely on the claims of the four horsemen of atheism, Dawkins, Dennet, Shermer and Harris, and the pope of all, Darwin, rather than spending time and looking into the evidence by themselves. All they do, behaving in that manner, is disrespecting themselves, putting their souls at risk to be deluded by their own wishes and faulty approach, and if they are wrong, losing their eternity with God.

A smart epistemological approach about origins of our existence goes as this:

1. Asking: what is ? what exists? Answer: X
2. Asking: what are the possible mechanisms to explain the origin of X? Answer: Y and Z ( and eventually, other causes )
3. Is X better explained by Y or Z?
4. Concluding Y or Z, depending on where the evidence leads to.
5. Moving forward, and trying to identify as accurately as possible the precise identity of the cause, if it is an intelligent agent.

6. Number 1 and 2 is a continuing exercise of science, philosophy, and theology. Upon the advance of understanding, the conclusion is eventually re-evaluated, and changed, if sufficient reasons exist.  

Upon my understanding, intelligent design/creationism tops naturalism - materialism as best case-adequate answer in regards to origins:

125 reasons to believe in God
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god

A cumulative case for the God of the bible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-the-god-of-the-bible

" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1440-there-is-no-evidence-for-god

God:Why it`s an irrational demand to ask proofs of his existence 9F5Hhnr



Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:13 am; edited 51 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
There are no empirical proofs of Gods existence

Demand: All the religions make that claim for their specific god. Well, I want some proof, hard verifiable proof. 
Answer: This is one of the most common demands of Atheists and mentioned as reason for unbelief until the burden of proof is met. All which such demand demonstrates is the lack of epistemological sophistication of the skeptic. Usually, this challenge goes hand in hand with the claim that " There is no evidence of God's existence ". What they want to say however is, that there is no empirical proof. 

This is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is. To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides. Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.

The seeker must also be willing to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. He needs to be willing to put all his prejudices and bias aside as much as possible, and permit an entirely and exclusively rational approach, based on scientific reasoning and logic, that is, doing the observation, elaborating a hypothesis, testing when possible, and getting well-based and rationally justifiable conclusions. When dealing with the observation of the natural world, the question is, what mechanism explains best the origin of X. That is not the same as to ask, how something works, which is what empirical science deals with. That helps and advances the question of how something came to be when its mechanistic ( physicochemical ) working is known, and what contributes to that. Back in Darwins time, 150 years ago, there was no knowledge about the complexity of the biochemical reality, intracellular action and molecular world. Today, we have advanced understanding on that, and every day that passes, that knowledge adds up. 

The first question to answer is not which God, but what cause and mechanism best explains our existence. There are basically just two options. Either a creative conscious intelligent supernatural powerful creative agency above the natural world acted and was involved, or not. That's it. All answers can be divided in this two basic options and categories. While the atheist affirms, no God was required, the theist claims, God is necessary. Some atheists have argued that the can be many explanations, we just do not know them yet. I disagree. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. 

The next step a seeker needs to elucidate is: What signs point to design, rather than non-design? What can be clearly attributed to the action of a conscious intelligent agency? ( or agencies - plural ? ) Then he has to move forward to actually understand how our natural world works. The better understanding and education, the better. Unfortunately, this is a huge hurdle, and many are too lazy to spend time to actually understand the natural world and prefer to see what fits best what they want, and then search for who provides the answers they want to be true ( bias is a big factor contributing to self-delusion ). That is a common approach by atheists. They prefer to rely on the claims of the four horsemen of atheism, Dawkins, Dennet, Shermer and Harris, and the pope of all, Darwin, rather than spending time and looking into the evidence by themselves. All they do, behaving in that manner, is disrespecting themselves, putting their souls at risk to be deluded by their own wishes and faulty approach, and if they are wrong, losing their eternity with God.

A smart epistemological approach about origins of our existence goes as this:

1. Asking: what is ? what exists? Answer: X
2. Asking: what are the possible mechanisms to explain the origin of X? Answer: Y and Z ( and eventually, other causes )
3. Is X better explained by Y or Z?
4. Concluding Y or Z, depending on where the evidence leads to.
5. Moving forward, and trying to identify as accurately as possible the precise identity of the cause, if it is an intelligent agent.

6. Number 1 and 2 is a continuing exercise of science, philosophy, and theology. Upon the advance of understanding, the conclusion is eventually re-evaluated, and changed, if sufficient reasons exist. 

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Atheists constantly ask for empirical proofs of Gods existence. They say: No one has ever produced any verifiable evidence for any god. All the religions make that claim for their specific god. Well, I want some proof, hard verifiable proof.

Have you already heard that demand? I hear it constantly. Then you begin with Jesus, with the fulfilled prophecies, with design in nature, with the Kalaam, fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity of living beings, the origin of life and so on.....

When you already did spend a deal of time, and no progress was made, you ask: What evidence are you looking for? usually, the atheist has no answer, because he never thought about that question. He does not know how to recognize Gods signature in nature. But that also demonstrates that he had never a real intention to find God. Usually, most atheists we encounter, just want to confirm what they already believe, and are not open or interested to encounter Jesus.

They see no benefit in their lives to believe in God, want to keep living autonomously from him and diminish the fear that HE eventually does exist and might punish and condemn them for their sins. So they are grateful when they find a not so well instructed theist, where they can bash his faith in old debunked fairy tale books written by sheepherders, and so on. When they find a theist which refutes their lame excuses with qualification, they get angry, and name-calling begins.

But when they demand verifiable evidence, they mean that they want a theophany, where God does magic in front of them, or an appearance on the Sky, where he hand-waves: Hi friend, I am heeere !!

An atheist in most cases has no idea how Gods existence would be proven. Another escape is: " God knows what it takes to convince me of his existence".

But usually, what is meant, even if not expressed is: They want some sensory input, they want to sense God.

Socrates said: Say, that I may see you!

Spoken words say who you are. Jesus said:

For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words, you will be condemned.”

Words say who you are.

Words say who God is. Information is the key. A meme which is quite insulting says: " I need people to prove God to me because I cannot think for myself."

Well, the truth is, God speaks to us through his word, because that is the right and best method of revelation. Spoken words, Information. Of course, if an atheist rejects Gods revelation through his spoken word outhand and a priori, then the problem is not the lack of Gods revelation. But his incredulity and misotheism.

Gods message was revealed to humankind through history that he made with Israel in the Old Testament, during an increasing taking off the veil, a gradual revelation of his nature through HIS interaction with Israel, which had its epitome when God made his appearance in Christ, and the curtain of the holy of the holy of the second temple was torn in two from top to bottom. That meant, men now had direct spiritual access to the throne of God through the holy spirit and prayer - no priest intermediate required.

The age of grace makes it possible to man through the holy spirit to come into the close presence of God, into the intimate union and spiritual interaction. God has made it possible. Now it depends on us, to develop this relationship. Gods word exhorts us to exert our faith, and the more we do, the more we will experience God in our lives.

As the Bible says: There is no justification for unbelief. God could have remained hidden and not revealed his identity - but he did. He has revealed his power in his creation, so: no excuse. The claim that there is no evidence of HIM is lame, inexcusable, willfully ignorant, and unless the unbeliever repents, Gods response will be just and in time.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Atheist: Provide verifiable evidence for any God, demonstrating his existence.
Answer: Without God's hiddenness we would not have any significant freedom. Even those that hate God would be unable to fully live according to their wishes; much like a criminal would find it intolerable living in police station. If God stays hidden to a degree, He gives people the free will to either respond to His tugging at their hearts or remain autonomous from Him. There is enough light for those who desire only to see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition. If we can make God an object of our observations we have demoted God to the level of a thing in creation.  We who have been wooed into a covenantial loving relationship with God, find comfort in is omnipresence and His omniscience. But for those who resist the love of God, those attributes would be nothing less than hell on earth.

If you were an intelligent software made by humans living in a virtual world of bytes, how would you show other intelligent software that humans exist? You can’t come out of the computer. Humans would need to resort to software in order to communicate with you. In other words, you will never ever be capable of interacting with humans directly. You would see another software that looks probably like you controlled by humans and you would need to trust that software is a human. God has the same limitation; he cannot get into creation as he exactly is. It is not possible for him. He needs to rely on using physical matter to interact with us. 

Dr.Quantum gives us a nice illustration. Beings living in two dimensions cannot grasp what it is to live in three dimensions. In the same way, we cannot grasp higher dimensions not accessible to our minds.

Dr. Quantum Flatland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEVEKL1Fbx0

In order to demonstrate to us God's nature, God had to come down to become one like us.

Jeffery Lowder, a writer at Secular Web, believes that we have sufficient reason to believe that “…the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea has a high final probability” . This is important for the case for the resurrection as it affirms that Jesus’ body was really in the tomb in the first place. This would then require the historian to have a sufficient historical explanation for how the tomb became empty apart from the unanimous testimony of a resurrection.

Generally speaking of Jesus’ ministry Neil Carter writes that “While highly colored by religious bias, the amount of information we have about Jesus is still impressive in comparison to any other non-official person of his time, even when pared down the most essential details”

Jesus Christ gave many signs that proved he was the Son of God, the Messiah. One was at the wedding at Cana, in Galilee, where he transformed water in whine (John 2:1-11.) Another sign was given when Jesus healed the official’s son at Capernaum. (Ref. John 4:46-54) Another, when Jesus walked on the water and his feeding of 5,000 men. Another was the resurrection of Jesus’ friend Lazarus. These were miracles that only God could do.

The ultimate sign was Jesus' resurrection. Despite it, many claim that the Gospels are unproven stories. One common claim of atheists is that 'there is NO evidence of the historical Jesus'' Because ALL the Bible and ancient writings of Jesus could be written by anyone and were written by so many people, years after the events, which could easily be made up.So God gave us another sign: The shroud of Turin

The Gospels of Matthew,[27:59–60] Mark,[15:46] and Luke[23:53] state that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in a piece of linen cloth and placed it in a new tomb. The Gospel of John[19:38–40] refers to strips of linen used by Joseph of Arimathea and states that Apostle Peter found multiple pieces of burial cloth after the tomb was found open, strips of linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head.[20:6–7]

The shroud provides to the lost world the forensic facts and evidence of the horror of Jesus going to the cross. The Shroud bears the ultimate triumph of the Resurrection of Jesus (Yeshua) meaning Salvation. All this is recorded supernaturally on The Shroud of Turin, which proves the Holy Bible to be forensically accurate and perfectly reliable in every possible way.

By virtue of their substance and form, physical objects require no faith whatsoever. They can be observed, examined, touched and even smelled. -- This is the very opposite of "faith." Thomas was not commended or blessed because he had "seen" Jesus after the resurrection, but those who believe WITHOUT SEEING ARE! (John 20:29)

The shroud of turin
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1688-shroud-of-turin

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
Answering Another Objection to Intelligent Design: “You Can’t Prove God Exists”

Claim: “I don’t accept intelligent design because you can’t prove God exists.”
Reply: Well, you can’t “prove” that “God” exists in the same way that we can put chemicals in a test tube and show that some compound or element is present in a solution. So in that sense it’s a reasonable statement.

The problem with offering this as an objection to intelligent design is that intelligent design as a scientific theory doesn’t claim we can “prove” the existence of “God” through science in the sense of a deductive logical proof. What intelligent design does say is that we can infer that intelligent design is the best explanation for certain features of nature

Science Doesn’t Deal in Absolute Proof
Philosophers of science generally agree that, strictly speaking, science does not “prove” things. An MIT Press book dealing with the philosophy of science reminds us that “hypotheses are never affirmatively proved, they are only falsified.” Thus, the National Academy of Sciences correctly states (correctly in my view) that, “Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.”

Rather than absolute proof, scientific theories deal in evidence—you can have powerful empirical evidence supporting a testable scientific claim, but science never “proves” anything the way we might “prove” a mathematical theorem. Thus, most ID proponents would agree with Michael J. Biercuk who wrote at The Conversation, that “in science, uncertainty is always present….”

So to object to ID because it doesn’t “prove” something or other is to misstate what intelligent design is. As a scientific theory, all intelligent design says is that there is evidence for a given proposition — perhaps very strong evidence. One can also go further and say that as a historical scientific theory, ID explains the evidence better than other models do. This is why Stephen Meyer has said that intelligent design is an “inference to the best explanation”:

1. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/02/answering-another-objection-to-intelligent-design-you-cant-prove-god-exists/

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum