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

[th1b.taylor]

Exactly as Paul teaches in Romans 1

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

Stan, I'm sorry but you appear to have lost touch with the subject as has Oz from all appearances. You can beat the lost man over the head all day long with you 95 pound Study Bible and he will do the same thing I, as an Atheist would have done with this answer to the presented question. I would, immediately ask you for the emperacle science to back that up. You have quoted Oz and it appears you are backing his position without thought being given to the subject of the title and elaborated on in the OP.

The Book of Romans is a great source for the faith building of the Christian, as it is for the seeker that has prayed and asked God to build his or her faith but for one wanting science to back up the God of creation, it will not help because there is no help in the field of science.

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have been tested long enough that the Scientific Community has been, for some years now, producing dyed in the wool scientists that are searching for a new theory to postulate and present because these have failed the test of science. The Bible, as we know it today, has been tested for about two thousand years and has stood the tests of time but if you hit them with Romans 1 they will laugh at you and tell you that is not a scientific answer... and they are right.

I believe every word and every principal set forth in the scriptures but that is because I have the faith my God has given me.

 

[Stan1953]

Stan, I'm sorry but you appear to have lost touch with the subject as has Oz from all appearances. You can beat the lost man over the head all day long with you 95 pound Study Bible and he will do the same thing I, as an Atheist would have done with this answer to the presented question. I would, immediately ask you for the emperacle science to back that up. You have quoted Oz and it appears you are backing his position without thought being given to the subject of the title and elaborated on in the OP.

The Book of Romans is a great source for the faith building of the Christian, as it is for the seeker that has prayed and asked God to build his or her faith but for one wanting science to back up the God of creation, it will not help because there is no help in the field of science.

The Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution have been tested long enough that the Scientific Community has been, for some years now, producing dyed in the wool scientists that are searching for a new theory to postulate and present because these have failed the test of science. The Bible, as we know it today, has been tested for about two thousand years and has stood the tests of time but if you hit them with Romans 1 they will laugh at you and tell you that is not a scientific answer... and they are right.

I believe every word and every principal set forth in the scriptures but that is because I have the faith my God has given me.

Well Bill, I understand Oz because I've known him for a bit and have debated with him on other forums. I know his heart and where he is coming from. It appears you don't and are quick to make some judgements. I know you as well my friend, even though you may not remember me. I don't use a 95 lb study Bible anymore, haven't since the advent and availability of all the tools I need for studying the Bible online. My NIV study Bible looks almost brand new.
The point is that there is evidence, empirical and otherwise, IF one is willing to see and acknowledge it. The problem is most scientists don't or won't, and so to the question of the OP, I believe because I do , not because it was scientifically proven to me, but because I used my faith to believe, the evidence now lies before me and I can use it to encourage and show others.
I'm not sure what you find so distasteful about this? God Himself was willing to prove to Malachi, the Italian prophet, so why wouldn't He be willing to prove to others also, like He did with Gideon? God sees the heart and if He sees sincerity, even in an unbeliever, He will make Himself known and prove that He IS God.

 

[Danus]

Or do we see what God does every day? How can you we see the God who states in Scripture that he is invisible? First Tim 1:17 describes him as 'to the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen' (ESV).

Well, I can't tell you how to see God in the literal sense. I think you're preferring the literal sense, I guess, but in any case I believe you've misunderstood me; preferring instead to not see God from a spiritual view, but only from a physical view. ??

One might ask themselves, if they did see God literally, how would they know what they are even looking at? I suspect most would not. Unless, of course, God revealed Himself. So, to me there is nothing different from a burning bush revealing itself as God to Moses, or the image I see of God in a sunrise, or a selfless act kindness from one to another. God's image is also revealed in His word.

Yes there are scriptures that speak of God's invisible nature, but that God is visually invisible as an entity is less the point.

Beyond the point of God's invisible quality is where we see from the bible that God can be clearly seen. Take Romans 1:20; 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. So here we see Paul making the point that although God is invisible as an entity, He is clearly seen, and not only is that true, but anyone claiming God can not be seen is without excuse. Or, Colossians 1:15; The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, clearly visible.

God can be seen. He can be known. Evidence of God is clearly seen, and can be seen. Anyone who does not see God, or claims that God can not be seen just isn't looking, or prefers to not see God.

The OP asked, how can we believe in something that can not be seen? I can't answer that question for others, but I'd say; It's illogical to believe in that which can not be seen, but, more importantly, God is not hiding Himself. He is not playing a game of find me if you can. He has reveled Himself to all mankind, and can be clearly seen in His word, in Christ Jesus, in nature, and in the hearts of other believers. In this sense, God is not invisible. This should not be a troubling puzzle for us, or some stumbling block. Faith, in God, is not blind.

 

[OzSpen]

But the evidence cannot be scientific because God is hte Creator of all we use science to prove, placing Him above and outside our realm of existence. Did I, a self professed Atheist have some proof? Yes but nothing a scientist would deal with, they would recommend I never be promoted again and that I needed to see louny boys with their tie up sleeves.

What about historical science for the historical Jesus? What's the proof that he lived on earth, died on a cross, was buried, rose again and ascended to heaven? Are you going to discount this kind of science?

As for the other information in your post re the survey, it only gives us some broad views. As for the % who are born again, we don't really know. It's too easy to say, 'Yes, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus', but is that the resurrection as understood by John Stott, Norm Geisler, Albert Mohler Jr., Rudolph Bultmann, John Shelby Spong, or the Jesus' Seminar fellows? Until we question more deeply, we won't know.

Now back to the OP. How can I believe in my mother's love? I knew it from scientific observation and daily experience when I was a child and as an adult.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Well Bill, I understand Oz because I've known him for a bit and have debated with him on other forums. I know his heart and where he is coming from. It appears you don't and are quick to make some judgements. I know you as well my friend, even though you may not remember me. I don't use a 95 lb study Bible anymore, haven't since the advent and availability of all the tools I need for studying the Bible online. My NIV study Bible looks almost brand new.
The point is that there is evidence, empirical and otherwise, IF one is willing to see and acknowledge it. The problem is most scientists don't or won't, and so to the question of the OP, I believe because I do , not because it was scientifically proven to me, but because I used my faith to believe, the evidence now lies before me and I can use it to encourage and show others.
I'm not sure what you find so distasteful about this? God Himself was willing to prove to Malachi, the Italian prophet, so why wouldn't He be willing to prove to others also, like He did with Gideon? God sees the heart and if He sees sincerity, even in an unbeliever, He will make Himself known and prove that He IS God.

Would you be so kind as to present this empirical scientific evidence that God has, I guess, been remiss in showing me? And if you were to do the tests Gideon did and God was gracious and answered you the Atheist would claim circumstance and the scientist would demand you recreate the result a few more times or he would write it off as circumstantial. I find nothing distasteful other than the lack of attention to the intentions of the OP. That, all to common, world-like practice is known as hijacking the thread. The forums I served on in the past would never have allowed that and many still do not allow that practice.

I am no longer moderating anywhere but on my own site and with this stupid disease having advanced to, what the doctors call, the final stage, I have need of a co-teacher for my class and I am very unreliable for service schedules today but the scriptures have not excused me from judging the fruit growing on the trees.

May God bless.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Well, I can't tell you how to see God in the literal sense. I think you're preferring the literal sense, I guess, but in any case I believe you've misunderstood me; preferring instead to not see God from a spiritual view, but only from a physical view. ??

One might ask themselves, if they did see God literally, how would they know what they are even looking at? I suspect most would not. Unless, of course, God revealed Himself. So, to me there is nothing different from a burning bush revealing itself as God to Moses, or the image I see of God in a sunrise, or a selfless act kindness from one to another. God's image is also revealed in His word.

Yes there are scriptures that speak of God's invisible nature, but that God is visually invisible as an entity is less the point.

Beyond the point of God's invisible quality is where we see from the bible that God can be clearly seen. Take Romans 1:20; 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. So here we see Paul making the point that although God is invisible as an entity, He is clearly seen, and not only is that true, but anyone claiming God can not be seen is without excuse. Or, Colossians 1:15; The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, clearly visible.

God can be seen. He can be known. Evidence of God is clearly seen, and can be seen. Anyone who does not see God, or claims that God can not be seen just isn't looking, or prefers to not see God.

The OP asked, how can we believe in something that can not be seen? I can't answer that question for others, but I'd say; It's illogical to believe in that which can not be seen, but, more importantly, God is not hiding Himself. He is not playing a game of find me if you can. He has reveled Himself to all mankind, and can be clearly seen in His word, in Christ Jesus, in nature, and in the hearts of other believers. In this sense, God is not invisible. This should not be a troubling puzzle for us, or some stumbling block. Faith, in God, is not blind.

Well put.

 

[th1b.taylor]

What about historical science for the historical Jesus? What's the proof that he lived on earth, died on a cross, was buried, rose again and ascended to heaven? Are you going to discount this kind of science?

That is historical evidence and a number of lies from the Left are used to discount the value of this history. It just is not empirical science and we must never fall into the trap they have fallen into and push forward our own revisionist version of history, God does not like liars and He has already forgiven me of to much to go about building a more recent charge of sins.

As for the other information in your post re the survey, it only gives us some broad views. As for the % who are born again, we don't really know. It's too easy to say, 'Yes, I believe in the resurrection of Jesus', but is that the resurrection as understood by John Stott, Norm Geisler, Albert Mohler Jr., Rudolph Bultmann, John Shelby Spong, or the Jesus' Seminar fellows? Until we question more deeply, we won't know.

Did you really just drag the world into this? Several of these men are deeply respected by me and others but I follow none of them nor should you except you do not wish to live eternally in Heaven. Until Jesus returns to rule the final thousand years, the Bible is the Christian's Final Court of Arbitration. God, and His Word are not in need of any man's justification and this suggestion would leave me demanding a hand written Statement of Faith for careful and considered examination before you should be voted on for complete fellowship. As I have repeatedly stated, if God has preserved it in his Holy Scriptures, it is beyond question.

Now back to the OP. How can I believe in my mother's love? I knew it from scientific observation and daily experience when I was a child and as an adult.

Pullleese! You knew your mum loved you before you spoke your first word, we all did. And on top of that you were born with the Scientific Method written on your heart?

 

[OzSpen]

Danus,

I cannot literally see God because he is invisible. I provided biblical evidence for this. You say I prefer the literal sense. I sure do. Just as I read the newspaper, I read the Bible, for the plain meaning of the text, which includes the understanding of all figures of speech, including parables. But that does not exclude the fact that I need the Holy Spirit's power for understanding.

We know from John 4:24, 'God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth' (ESV). We cannot physically see the God who is invisible and who is spirit.

As for Rom. 1:20, it is important to understand what it states, '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'. It does not state that we see the person of God with out physical eyes. We see 'God's invisible qualities', which are his eternal power and divine nature, through what God has made - in creation. Thus people are without excuse when they stand before God. What have they done with the evidence he has provided while they were on earth?

These are the biblical facts that I'm sticking with:

Exodus 33:20, '"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live"' (NIV).

Exodus 33:23, 'Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen'.

John 1:18, 'No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known'.

God can be seen. He can be known. Evidence of God is clearly seen, and can be seen. Anyone who does not see God, or claims that God can not be seen just isn't looking, or prefers to not see God.

I can honestly state that I have not seen God physically, but I know the Lord God. Evidence for God is not clearly seen in God's essence, but in the creation that he has made and in the person of Jesus when he was on earth. You state that anyone who does not see God, 'just isn't looking'. That's not so for me. I'm not looking for God physically as he is invisible and is spirit. For me, it is not that this man 'prefers to not see God', but that he believes what the Scriptures state that God is invisible and is spirit and is not meant for my physical eyes to see his evidence.

Well, I can't tell you how to see God in the literal sense. I think you're preferring the literal sense, I guess, but in any case I believe you've misunderstood me; preferring instead to not see God from a spiritual view, but only from a physical view. ??

One might ask themselves, if they did see God literally, how would they know what they are even looking at? I suspect most would not. Unless, of course, God revealed Himself. So, to me there is nothing different from a burning bush revealing itself as God to Moses, or the image I see of God in a sunrise, or a selfless act kindness from one to another. God's image is also revealed in His word.

Yes there are scriptures that speak of God's invisible nature, but that God is visually invisible as an entity is less the point.

Beyond the point of God's invisible quality is where we see from the bible that God can be clearly seen. Take Romans 1:20; 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. So here we see Paul making the point that although God is invisible as an entity, He is clearly seen, and not only is that true, but anyone claiming God can not be seen is without excuse. Or, Colossians 1:15; The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, clearly visible.

God can be seen. He can be known. Evidence of God is clearly seen, and can be seen. Anyone who does not see God, or claims that God can not be seen just isn't looking, or prefers to not see God.

The OP asked, how can we believe in something that can not be seen? I can't answer that question for others, but I'd say; It's illogical to believe in that which can not be seen, but, more importantly, God is not hiding Himself. He is not playing a game of find me if you can. He has reveled Himself to all mankind, and can be clearly seen in His word, in Christ Jesus, in nature, and in the hearts of other believers. In this sense, God is not invisible. This should not be a troubling puzzle for us, or some stumbling block. Faith, in God, is not blind.

 

[OzSpen]

That is historical evidence and a number of lies from the Left are used to discount the value of this history. It just is not empirical science and we must never fall into the trap they have fallen into and push forward our own revisionist version of history, God does not like liars and He has already forgiven me of to much to go about building a more recent charge of sins.


Did you really just drag the world into this? Several of these men are deeply respected by me and others but I follow none of them nor should you except you do not wish to live eternally in Heaven. Until Jesus returns to rule the final thousand years, the Bible is the Christian's Final Court of Arbitration. God, and His Word are not in need of any man's justification and this suggestion would leave me demanding a hand written Statement of Faith for careful and considered examination before you should be voted on for complete fellowship. As I have repeatedly stated, if God has preserved it in his Holy Scriptures, it is beyond question.


Pullleese! You knew your mum loved you before you spoke your first word, we all did. And on top of that you were born with the Scientific Method written on your heart?

I am finding it almost impossible to interact with you in 2-way communication as you don't seem to want to deal with the specifics of what I state in my posts. You give your spin offs of where you want to go with your response, which is in another direction. This is called using a red herring fallacy.

Until you address the specifics of what I post, I'll not continue this interaction.

 

[jasonc]

there is plenty of historical evidence that god exists, logical arguments. sheesh.
1) the ontological argument of the prime mover goes as such. the universe has order, therefore someone had to put in order
2) archeology confirms much of what the bible says on places, events. sure they try to explain the supernatural away but given romans one, deep down all men know.

 

[Stan1953]

Would you be so kind as to present this empirical scientific evidence that God has, I guess, been remiss in showing me? And if you were to do the tests Gideon did and God was gracious and answered you the Atheist would claim circumstance and the scientist would demand you recreate the result a few more times or he would write it off as circumstantial. I find nothing distasteful other than the lack of attention to the intentions of the OP. That, all to common, world-like practice is known as hijacking the thread. The forums I served on in the past would never have allowed that and many still do not allow that practice.
I am no longer moderating anywhere but on my own site and with this stupid disease having advanced to, what the doctors call, the final stage, I have need of a co-teacher for my class and I am very unreliable for service schedules today but the scriptures have not excused me from judging the fruit growing on the trees.
May God bless.

OK, lift up your hand and wiggle your finger. That's one.
I'm not an atheist and never have been, but to your point, if an atheist is unwilling to believe, then any evidence will not sway him.
There are many examples online of how God can be proven and the evidence thereof, but for some, their faith is all they needed, as was my case, so there is nothing they require.
You can look up and read Thomas Aquinas' five arguments for the existence of God, and that is only ONE person. There are many others.

 

[OzSpen]

there is plenty of historical evidence that god exists, logical arguments. sheesh.
1) the ontological argument of the prime mover goes as such. the universe has order, therefore someone had to put in order
2) archeology confirms much of what the bible says on places, events. sure they try to explain the supernatural away but given romans one, deep down all men know.

What's your view on how we can use these various arguments (evidence) in conversation with non-believers? My general approach to to allow people as much opportunity as possible to 'vent' and then pick up one point to discuss that seems to be a core part of their worldview that seems to have questions associated.

I don't know what it is like in your part of the world, but here in Brisbane I've not experienced too many pastors and church leaders who are interested in equipping their people in apologetics. My observation is that many of these church leaders seem ill equipped to do this.

I'm in the final stages of advanced study and when that is completed (hopefully by the end of the year), I'll be offering an apologetics seminar to evangelical churches.

 

[Stan1953]

Hey Oz I thought you used the mama roo and her joey as your avatar?

 

[OzSpen]

Hey Oz I thought you used the mama roo and her joey as your avatar?

I did, until someone said it looked like 2 roos having sex. So I removed it.

 

[Stan1953]

I did, until someone said it looked like 2 roos having sex. So I removed it.

HERE?
I know that happened before, but not here did it?

 

[OzSpen]

OK, lift up your hand and wiggle your finger. That's one.
I'm not an atheist and never have been, but to your point, if an atheist is unwilling to believe, then any evidence will not sway him.
There are many examples online of how God can be proven and the evidence thereof, but for some, their faith is all they needed, as was my case, so there is nothing they require.
You can look up and read Thomas Aquinas' five arguments for the existence of God, and that is only ONE person. There are many others.

Have you read Antony Flew (with Roy Abraham Varghese) 2007. There is no/a God: How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind (HarperOne)? Flew was an atheistic philosopher but he moved from atheism to deism, based on the evidence presented.

Here's some evidence from him on YouTube.

The New York Times reported his death on 8 April 2010.

To my knowledge he remained a deist until his dying day and did not become a born-again Christian. (See 'What is deism?') However, he did move from his atheism. I found the book to be a fascinating read to encourage me in the ministry of apologetics.

 

[OzSpen]

Hey Oz I thought you used the mama roo and her joey as your avatar?

No, it was HERE at #2.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I am finding it almost impossible to interact with you in 2-way communication as you don't seem to want to deal with the specifics of what I state in my posts. You give your spin offs of where you want to go with your response, which is in another direction. This is called using a red herring fallacy.

Until you address the specifics of what I post, I'll not continue this interaction.

Call it what you may and beg off without cause if you choose edited reba

 

[Stan1953]

No, it was HERE at #2.

Man...some people.

 

[th1b.taylor]

there is plenty of historical evidence that god exists, logical arguments. sheesh.
1) the ontological argument of the prime mover goes as such. the universe has order, therefore someone had to put in order

Sorry Jason but there is not a single secular scientist that will accept that as truth, It is their contention that it all happened by sheer circumstance. Oddly enough when i present them with the Chevy 427 parts thrown into a box and rocked to and fro for a few centuries they will cry fowl and assert that, of course it will never assemble itself. But that is exactly what they seem to suggest about God's Cereation.

2) archeology confirms much of what the bible says on places, events. sure they try to explain the supernatural away but given romans one, deep down all men know.

Yes, but this does not help your first point at all.