How can you believe in something that can't be scientifically proven?

[th1b.taylor]

Like some of the true honest righteous scientists et al have said - so, you think we are all descended from a puddle of goo ? is that 'better', or is it any more "CREDIBLE" than being descendant from Adam and Eve (and Yhwh the Creator!) ?

Free choice - faith in 'goo'
or
Faith in Yhwh the Creator !

Like you Jeff, I chose the Creator and He has so rewarded me since. God bless, brother.

 

[tim-from-pa]

This is one of the questions that many secular people will ask.This is one of the questions my brother used to ask.He was a scientist.What would you tell them?

I would say that the concept behind proving something by the scientific method, is to develop a hypothesis, and then prove it with repeatable experiments to see if nature does what one thinks it should do. HOWEVER, anyone who is truly scientific can see that the scope of that proof lies in the advancements and technology of the day. In other words, there's some "experiments" that cannot be done, so a hypothesis remains just that: a hypothesis. A truly scientific person will agree that there's limitations to what can be proven. In that case, anything that cannot be proven remains inconclusive.

Now, if this is a question (in disguise) about using science to prove if God exists and one's right to believe, then again, it cannot be proven. They may create a hypothesis saying that an intelligent being would react consistently to one's experiments (such as answering prayer 100% the way the person wants it to be answered), but this is a logical fallacy, for maybe God does not react the way we hypothesize. This is the same erroneous logic as a burglar who rings a doorbell (analogous to praying) and if there's no answer, then he must not be home (there's no God). No, maybe the guy was taking a shower, or didn't hear the bell, or maybe just does not care to answer the door. Many confrontations occurred because of the crook's uppity, arrogant assumption.

Also, one who places too much faith in the limited scientific method is blindly believing in that over placing faith in something they accuse cannot be proven, and in effect called the kettle black. When I discuss anything with atheists, I always say that if they were truly, truly honest with themselves, they are really agnostics, i.e. one cannot prove (by their standards) whether God exists or not. So one therefore has every right to believe or not believe because either position lacks the evidence they so much crave. That's because sometimes things do exist that cannot (at this point) be proven and sometimes they don't.

 

[jasonc]

Jason, Please go to http://www.openbible.info/topics/thoughts_and_the_mind and dig out or use the internet to access a copy of the Nave's Topical and study this issue. The highlighted in red is, absolutely not the remarks that have sprung out of the Church.

so you believe that i as a soldier shouldn't live by my values. i shouldn't read up on Marxism, atheism and other worldviews and see what is the truth and if im a Christian then i shouldn't use that to debunk them views? Christianity is real and its the only accurate view of why we are here.

you do realize that secular humanism must be dealt with.one doesn't have to always say the bible is the truth because i say it is. while we should have some axioms to start with and that is acceptable in debating. athiests do it. so do we.

axioms

1) god created all that is
2) sin occurred at adam and eve's rebellion
3) god didn't intend for the fall of man but allowed it, ie free will

those are axioms.

 

[Stan1953]

Of course you did

I meant the person who thought it was two roos copulating.

 

[th1b.taylor]

so you believe that i as a soldier shouldn't live by my values. i shouldn't read up on Marxism, atheism and other worldviews and see what is the truth and if im a Christian then i shouldn't use that to debunk them views? Christianity is real and its the only accurate view of why we are here.

you do realize that secular humanism must be dealt with.one doesn't have to always say the bible is the truth because i say it is. while we should have some axioms to start with and that is acceptable in debating. athiests do it. so do we.

axioms

1) god created all that is
2) sin occurred at adam and eve's rebellion
3) god didn't intend for the fall of man but allowed it, ie free will

those are axioms.

ax·i·om
noun \ˈak-sē-əm\
: a rule or principle that many people accept as true

Jason,
Not one of the three points are an axiom, they are truths, absolute truths and they are not points from which to postulate a theory but axioms are just that, points of origin for theories.

That is the important point now, onward. I said nothing to peeve, and you know the word I did not use (Moderators), you and you may deny it but you, my friend, are upset. I did not attack you so stop trying to get me another coffee break, bad taste.

Then, I served with both Christian and Atheist in service to my nation and people. I remember nothing of my fellow Atheists, they helped me get drunk and high but did nothing for me to ever profit from except to, maybe, keep me alive and any Christian would do the same in spite of my beliefs then. If you need me to critique your military performance, you do not need to ever be in any position of authority. There is a great deal of truth that can be interjected here but I do not want another coffee break right now and will leave it lay.

Now, on Marxism. I pray the military has caught up with my position in the mid-sixties and has, not passed off but by this time has realized the Arab Nations and the teachings of their false prophet are a much clearer danger than the Marxist Communists.

Jason, Christianity is a world view. It is a much hated and greatly maligned point of view but it is correct as far as we follow God.

 

[agua.]

I meant the person who thought it was two roos copulating.

Yeah I know