Topic: PROVING GOD WITHOUT THE BIBLE

[JT]

Good day to everyone.
 
I am inspired to prepare a course entitled "Proving God Without The Bible". Got an idea a very old outline and I would like to update it. But I need your help to comment or discuss regarding every outline that will be posting weekly starting today.

So here it goes...

[JT]

Why am I keen to prepare and teach this course?
Even though many believe in God and believe that the Bible as His inspired word, there are many people who have no knowledge of God or Jesus or many of the other things we Christians hold dear.  A person who has never been introduced to the concept of God is similar to when I wake up in a very dark room. When I first woke up, I knew nothing. As I began to “know” things through personal observation I discovered (and came to believe) in the world around me. It was a step by step process.

We Christians are challenged to take the message into all the world.  Mark 16:15 “Jesus said to them, ‘Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to all mankind. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.’”  Paul said we need to meet people where they are 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. and Paul arguing in Acts 17:16-33.  We need to be prepared to explain why we believe what we believe – I Peter 3:15.

The Foundation – Truth
a)   To begin our proof of God, we first must agree on the subject of “TRUTH”.
 •   We demand truth in just about every aspect of our lives: money, marriages, safety, and health. So why would we not also demand it on matters related to faith?
 •   Truth is “telling it like it is” or “that which describes an actual state of affairs”.
 •   If something is true, it is true for all people, at all times, in all places. All truth claims are absolute, narrow and exclusive. All truths exclude their opposites. Even religious truths.
   o   Truth is discovered, not invented.
   o   Truth is trans-cultural.
   o   Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth may change. (e.g. flat earth belief)
   o   Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held.
   o   Truth is not affected by the one professing it.
   o   All truths are absolute truths.
   o   In short, contrary beliefs are possible but not contrary truths.
   o   What does our world today says about “Truth”?
b)   Our society will often try to say that “truth does not exist” or “truth cannot be known”.  Can you comment on the analysis below? How do you react to point’s a-f?
 •   These are self-defeating statements.
 •   They use a “truth statement” to prove “truth does not exist”.
 •   With the statement “there is not truth” we need to ask “Is that true?”
 •   With the statement “Truth cannot be known” we need to ask “How do you know that is true?”
 •   If there is no truth, why learn anything at all?
 •   We demand truth in our marriages, in our banking relationships, when we go to a doctor. Why not demand it when we discuss God?
c)   A side note in this course: Evidence cannot convince the unwilling.
 •   I need to ask “If  we showed beyond a reasonable doubt that God existed would you believe?” If no, then it is a problem with “WILL” not “INTELLECT”.

Can you comment where our culture might be today when it comes to wanting to know if there really is a God? What other key issues and questions do people have when it comes to proving God’s existence? Why is this important or is it still important today?

[Frankthetank]

Interesting topic, bookmarking for now.

[leomarley]

Proving God without the Bible?

Eto, sacred scriptures ng mga ibang relihiyon:

5.1 Adidam
5.2 Aetherius Society
5.3 Ásatrú
5.4 Atenism
5.5 Ayyavazhi
5.6 Aztec religion
5.7 Bahá'í Faith
5.8 Bön
5.9 Buddhism
5.10 Cheondoism
5.11 Christianity
5.12 Confucianism
5.13 Discordianism
5.14 Druidism
5.15 Druze
5.16 Ancient Egyptian religion
5.17 Etruscan religion
5.18 Ancient Greece
5.19 Hermeticism
5.20 Hinduism
5.21 Islam
5.22 Jainism
5.23 Judaism
5.24 LaVeyan Satanism
5.25 Mandaeanism
5.26 Manichaeism
5.27 Maya religion
5.28 Meher Baba
5.29 Native American Church
5.30 New Age religions
5.31 Orphism
5.32 Raëlism
5.33 Rastafari movement
5.34 Ravidassia
5.35 Samaritanism
5.36 Science of Mind
5.37 Scientology
5.38 Shinto
5.39 Sikhism
5.40 Spiritism
5.41 Sumerian
5.42 Swedenborgianism
5.43 Taoism
5.44 Tenrikyo
5.45 Thelema
5.46 Unarius Academy of Science
5.47 Unification Church
5.48 Urantianism
5.49 Wicca
5.50 Yârsân
5.51 Yazidi
5.52 Yorùbá
5.53 Zoroastrianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

[JT]

Proving God without the Bible?

Eto, sacred scriptures ng mga ibang relihiyon:

5.1 Adidam
5.2 Aetherius Society
5.3 Ásatrú
5.4 Atenism
5.5 Ayyavazhi
5.6 Aztec religion
5.7 Bahá'í Faith
5.8 Bön
5.9 Buddhism
5.10 Cheondoism
5.11 Christianity
5.12 Confucianism
5.13 Discordianism
5.14 Druidism
5.15 Druze
5.16 Ancient Egyptian religion
5.17 Etruscan religion
5.18 Ancient Greece
5.19 Hermeticism
5.20 Hinduism
5.21 Islam
5.22 Jainism
5.23 Judaism
5.24 LaVeyan Satanism
5.25 Mandaeanism
5.26 Manichaeism
5.27 Maya religion
5.28 Meher Baba
5.29 Native American Church
5.30 New Age religions
5.31 Orphism
5.32 Raëlism
5.33 Rastafari movement
5.34 Ravidassia
5.35 Samaritanism
5.36 Science of Mind
5.37 Scientology
5.38 Shinto
5.39 Sikhism
5.40 Spiritism
5.41 Sumerian
5.42 Swedenborgianism
5.43 Taoism
5.44 Tenrikyo
5.45 Thelema
5.46 Unarius Academy of Science
5.47 Unification Church
5.48 Urantianism
5.49 Wicca
5.50 Yârsân
5.51 Yazidi
5.52 Yorùbá
5.53 Zoroastrianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

Actually, this is not about any religion nor its sacred scriptures (including the bible). The focus is getting to know the truth about God without using any of these as reference.

[dpogs]

parang "Proving God without manuscripts/literatures/scriptures"

[leomarley]

So I guess this is specific to the Christian God only?

[dpogs]

the whole universe (creation) speaks that there is God Almighty Creator

[heisenbergman]

Are you interested in literally proving God - meaning basing your course on facts, science, observable, objective and measurable truths? Or "proving" God just enough to educate people regarding the God of Christianity so that they may make an informed decision whether or not to follow God (i.e. - to not follow God in blind faith)?

[heisenbergman]

The Foundation – Truth
a)   To begin our proof of God, we first must agree on the subject of “TRUTH”.
 •   We demand truth in just about every aspect of our lives: money, marriages, safety, and health. So why would we not also demand it on matters related to faith?
 •   Truth is “telling it like it is” or “that which describes an actual state of affairs”.
 •   If something is true, it is true for all people, at all times, in all places. All truth claims are absolute, narrow and exclusive. All truths exclude their opposites. Even religious truths.
   o   Truth is discovered, not invented.
   o   Truth is trans-cultural.
   o   Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth may change. (e.g. flat earth belief)
   o   Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held.
   o   Truth is not affected by the one professing it.
   o   All truths are absolute truths.
   o   In short, contrary beliefs are possible but not contrary truths.
   o   What does our world today says about “Truth”?
b)   Our society will often try to say that “truth does not exist” or “truth cannot be known”.  Can you comment on the analysis below? How do you react to point’s a-f?
 •   These are self-defeating statements.
 •   They use a “truth statement” to prove “truth does not exist”.
 •   With the statement “there is not truth” we need to ask “Is that true?”
 •   With the statement “Truth cannot be known” we need to ask “How do you know that is true?”
 •   If there is no truth, why learn anything at all?
 •   We demand truth in our marriages, in our banking relationships, when we go to a doctor. Why not demand it when we discuss God?
c)   A side note in this course: Evidence cannot convince the unwilling.
 •   I need to ask “If  we showed beyond a reasonable doubt that God existed would you believe?” If no, then it is a problem with “WILL” not “INTELLECT”.

Can you comment where our culture might be today when it comes to wanting to know if there really is a God? What other key issues and questions do people have when it comes to proving God’s existence? Why is this important or is it still important today?

Based on this, I think you're trying to prove god in a scientific fashion. I just don't think that's possible. The only way to prove the existence of God is for that being to actually appear and show that he literally knows everything and can do everything... that he is omniscient, omnipotent & omnipresent.

Can you comment where our culture might be today when it comes to wanting to know if there really is a God?
I think most people are divided between simply either believing or not believing, with both sides not really wanting to know if there really is a God because there's no way to actually know. I think most people would be intrigued by the possibility of empirically proving that there is a God if the possibility presented itself; but as it stands, I think most people are satisfied with their beliefs without wanting to either be proven or disproven.

What other key issues and questions do people have when it comes to proving God’s existence?
Basically just that it cannot be proven or disproven... so people either believe that there is a God because of faith or believe that there is no God because of science.

Why is this important or is it still important today?
I think some people need something to believe in, so if they believe, then it's all good. For those people, it's important. I think the more important things in the world though are those that are tangible: Family, friends, the kindness of strangers, caring for the environment, people with dignity in the government, equality among gender, race and religious beliefs... basically everyone working together to advance the state of humanity in general.

I need to ask “If we showed beyond a reasonable doubt that God existed would you believe?”
Yup, sure. But like I said, the only way to show beyond reasonable doubt that God existed/exists is what I mentioned above.

[heisenbergman]

You can call your course "The Theory of God" if you want though and try to present all of the possible evidences for God's existence.

Kung sa science nga andaming theories na hindi proven (i.e. "Theory of Relativity", "Theory of Evolution", "Cell Theory"), there's nothing stopping anyone from building a similar framework for religious studies.

[JT]

You can call your course "The Theory of God" if you want though and try to present all of the possible evidences for God's existence.

Kung sa science nga andaming theories na hindi proven (i.e. "Theory of Relativity", "Theory of Evolution", "Cell Theory"), there's nothing stopping anyone from building a similar framework for religious studies.

Yep that's a good idea. Thanks.

[JT]

So I guess this is specific to the Christian God only?

No, not really. We are formulating a theory that there is a God without using any sacred text.

[leomarley]

Ah ok. That's a good thesis.

[dpogs]

No, not really. We are formulating a theory that there is a God without using any sacred text.

and excluded din ang mga personal experiences, naration at mga sabi sabi?

[heisenbergman]

and excluded din ang mga personal experiences, naration at mga sabi sabi?

...sinabi na ngang "without the Bible" eh...

lol sorry jk, I couldn't help myself :p don't mind me

[barrister]

and excluded din ang mga personal experiences, naration at mga sabi sabi?

Paano namang naging ebidensiya yon?   
 
Pero may feeling ako na puro personal experiences, narration at mga sabi-sabi lang nga ang pupuntahan ng thread na ito...   

Pero tignan natin, baka maganda rin naman.

[majoe]

No, not really. We are formulating a theory that there is a God without using any sacred text.

deistic beliefs subscribe to this.

http://www.deism.com/

[Nelson de Leon]

Pwede bang I-clarify ang meaning ng reasonable doubt muna para more or less we have a common target.

[Gino]

Philosophy went hand in hand with theology at my Jesuit school. While philosophy is not science, its logical nature makes it much closer to fact. It provides a deep foundation for faith beliefs.

While one can start thinking about the existence of God from scratch, it can be helpful to consider the various work of many philosophers. It is very interesting. The same conclusions drawn from various courses of philosophical thinking.

[JT]

WEEK TWO – RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE
Our society wants everyone to practice “religious tolerance”.

a. Is Religious intolerance dangerous?  We support religious tolerance but we have seen how extremists can take religious intolerance to a level where they feel they have to right to kill others for their beliefs.

b. Religious tolerance no longer means treating people with different beliefs respectfully and with civility. It now means we are supposed to accept every belief as true. In a religious context this is called PLURALISM – the belief that all religions are true.

c. All religions do have much in common in recognizing that we have a problem and that we want to live in “paradise” or in some improved way. But there are many points beyond that where they directly contradict each other.

d. While different religions do have “some similarities” the differences are significant and contradictory. On an individual basis this has profound implications. At each point of difference, one is false and one is true. For example, If Christianity is true then it is dangerous to your eternal destiny not to be a  Christian. If Islam is true then it is dangerous not to be a Muslim.

Can you cite some examples of what differences there are in all world religions. How does each system work? Discuss the uniqueness  among other religions. Do you know the uniqueness of Christianity?

e. The claim that “you ought not to question someone’s religious beliefs” is itself a religious belief of pluralists. This belief is just as “exclusive” and “intolerant” as any Christian or Muslim belief. Pluralists want everyone to agree with them and to see things the way they see things.

f. Christians are “commanded” to question other religions beliefs. Since Christians have that belief, the pluralists, by their own standards – should accept this Christian belief as well but do they?

g. While we should respect the rights of others to believe what they want, we are foolish and unloving to tacitly accept every religious belief as true. What an immeasurable insult to the finished work of Christ on the cross if we preach all paths to God are the same. Affirming such error might keep them on the road to damnation.

h. Do you agree that the best way to “prove” truth in religious thought is to use philosophy “in the classic sense” where it means finding truth through logic, evidence, and science. (Socratic method)

6. Why do people believe things in the first place?
  a. Sociological – parents, friends, society.
  b. Psychological – comfort, peace of mind
  c. Religious – scripture, pastor, priest, Imam, Church
  d. Philosophical – consistency, coherence, completeness (best fit to the
      evidence.
7. Do you believe "Truth is not a subjective matter of taste; it is an objective matter of facts".

Please share your thoughts from all the statements given.

[newbie pa rin]

I don't know if this counts.
Bible - most translated, most published, most read book of all time. There must be something in it.

[barrister]

I don't know if this counts.
Bible - most translated, most published, most read book of all time. There must be something in it.

 
I don't think it counts. 
 
Even if the bible is the most translated, most published and most read, it would only indicate that it's the most popular book.  It would be illogical to immediately conclude that God exists, based on that alone.
 
Ordinarily, when we say that a book is widely read, we mean that the book was read in full or nearly in full each time.  Yet when it comes to the bible, people read a few sentences and immediately claim that they "read the bible."  It would then be impossible to say with any certainty that the bible is indeed the most widely read book.  Thus, this claim of being the most widely read would only be speculation.
 
Millions of people buy bibles, but never actually read them.  If somebody buys a bible and a Harry Potter book, which one would he actually read? 
 
If I were to follow your logic, I would say that if the average person is more likely to read Harry Potter than the bible, then there must be something in Harry Potter.
 
In short, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

[heisenbergman]

I don't know if this counts.
Bible - most translated, most published, most read book of all time. There must be something in it.

I guess that just shows that it was marketed very well

[JT]

Apologies for late posting, I just came back from a long drive.  It was a long weekend here in NZ.  And thanks for the comments,  I do hope more will pour out their thoughts on this.  Anyways, here it goes ...

WEEK THREE – Observing The Rules
8. To find truth, one must be willing to give up subjective preferences in favour of objective facts. Facts are discovered through logic, evidence, and science.
9. To begin our proof of God we need to come to agreement on a few basic principles.
  a.   Truth exists and we can know truth.
  b.   The law of non-contradiction (a self-evident law of logic called a first principle – you don’t learn them, you just know them) – In short it means whatever is not true is false.
  c.   Self-defeating statements such as “truth does not exist” or “we cannot know truth” are easily defeated with the truth statements on which they are based. Is the first statement true? How do they know truth does not exist is true?
  d.   We use the law of non-contradiction (and other first principles) as tools to discover all other truths.
10. A logical argument is our next tool in “proving God”.
  a.   A logical argument is comprised of at least two premises that lead to a conclusion.
  b.   b. If both premises are true, the conclusion naturally follows as true.
  c.   For example:
     i.   All humans are mortal.
    ii.   Mike is a human.
   iii.   Therefore, Mike is mortal.
  d.   This works as long as both premises are true.
  e.   If either premise is false we have the following:
    i.   All humans are cold blooded reptiles.
   ii.   Mike is a human.
  iii.   Therefore, Mike is a cold blooded reptile.
  f.   We know this not to be true because one of the premises is false.

[tony]

i wonder if Jesus the Nazarene were to come back today:

1. will he recognize the Church, i mean all supposedly Christian churches?
2. will he confirm that the Bible His book?

or will He continue to be the revolutionary that he was back then?
specially since the conditions prevailing during his time has not changed much if at all...

[JT]

i wonder if Jesus the Nazarene were to come back today:

1. will he recognize the Church, i mean all supposedly Christian churches?
2. will he confirm that the Bible His book?

or will He continue to be the revolutionary that he was back then?
specially since the conditions prevailing during his time has not changed much if at all...

We should further discuss this on the Religion Thread. But just a quick info, bible says when Jesus comes back He wont be bothered by all these because His second coming is for the judgement of all. And everyone will be judged according the Word that has been spoken.

 
 

[tony]

thanks for replying JT...that was more of a rhetorical posting...

another....why the need to prove GOD?
nothing we mere mortals can ever say or do to prove God...
we either accept or deny....

[Nelson de Leon]

thanks for replying JT...that was more of a rhetorical posting...

another....why the need to prove GOD?
nothing we mere mortals can ever say or do to prove God...
we either accept or deny....

Why am I keen to prepare and teach this course?
Even though many believe in God and believe that the Bible as His inspired word, there are many people who have no knowledge of God or Jesus or many of the other things we Christians hold dear.  A person who has never been introduced to the concept of God is similar to when I wake up in a very dark room. When I first woke up, I knew nothing. As I began to “know” things through personal observation I discovered (and came to believe) in the world around me. It was a step by step process.

We Christians are challenged to take the message into all the world.  Mark 16:15 “Jesus said to them, ‘Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to all mankind. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.’”  Paul said we need to meet people where they are 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. and Paul arguing in Acts 17:16-33.  We need to be prepared to explain why we believe what we believe – I Peter 3:15.

 •   I need to ask “If  we showed beyond a reasonable doubt that God existed would you believe?” If no, then it is a problem with “WILL” not “INTELLECT”.

Can you comment where our culture might be today when it comes to wanting to know if there really is a God? What other key issues and questions do people have when it comes to proving God’s existence? Why is this important or is it still important today?

[barrister]

another....why the need to prove GOD?
nothing we mere mortals can ever say or do to prove God...
we either accept or deny....

I agree.

You're asking whether it is necessary to prove the existence of God.  But I ask whether it is even possible to prove the existence of God.

It's already April and we've not yet seen any proof.  The bigger the build-up, the greater the reader's disappointment, if this "proof" turns out to be a dud.

I've heard it many times before.  Somebody claims that he can prove the existence of God.  Listen to the "proof" and it's not convincing at all.

Just remember that merely "persuading" someone to believe that God exists is not the same as actually "proving" that God exists.

"Persuading" is easy.  Over thousands of years, millions have been easily persuaded.  But "proving" is quite another matter.