Proof of Creation

JerryLove · 09-30-2002, 10:55 AM

Quote:

That's just my point. Other than teh old testiment, there isn't a lot of evidence that any miracle happened. That's, agian, where faith has to play a part. Now there is one recording that I know of other than the old testiment.

It's convienient how that suddenlybecame important. When Thomas didn't believe Jesus shoewd him proof. Then he did again, and again, and even after his death he would present physical proof. Look at all the proof God has given!!! There's none around to actually look at? um.... faith!

**Chrysostom** · 10-02-2002, 01:52 PM

(JerryLove) It's convienient how that suddenlybecame important. When Thomas didn't believe Jesus shoewd him proof.

(Me) We shouldn't expect a certain type of proof to be universally used simply because God used it in one instance. Romans 1 also tells us that God HAS given the absolute proof of creation to everyone, but that we suppress it in our own unrighteousness.

(JerryLove) Then he did again, and again, and even after his death he would present physical proof. Look at all the proof God has given!!! There's none around to actually look at?

(Me) Different claims require different kinds of proof. I don't justify a claim about peanut butter being in my pantry the same way that I justify a claim about mathematics, nor should we expect the proof of Christ's physical resurrection offered for men present to see the risen Christ to categorically match the proof of commencing temporal events offered to finite, temporally limited beings long after the events themselves.

(JerryLove) um.... faith!

(Me) You're relying on the post-Enlightenment dichotomy between faith and reason. That is not the meaning of the "Christian faith" (although I fully affirm that we accept creation by faith, as the author of Hebrews tells us). Suppose that you know a person is the greatest Wittgenstein scholar of all time. If he told you that Wittgenstein's first name was "Ludwig" or that Wittgenstein wrote a book called Philosophical Grammar, you would accept this on faith. Of course, it would be a faithful trust in light of the facts -- not in spite of the facts.

JerryLove · 10-02-2002, 02:36 PM

Quote:

We shouldn't expect a certain type of proof to be universally used simply because God used it in one instance.

Dozens of instances and repeatedly to many individuals.

Quote:

Romans 1 also tells us that God HAS given the absolute proof of creation to everyone, but that we suppress it in our own unrighteousness.

Yea, God's "chosen people" in Exodus; after witnessing the plagues, and the pillar of flame, and freedom from the Egyptians; couldn't be bothered to believe in God for 72 hours straight while Moses went up the hill.

Since Thomas decided not to believe Jesus was God when raised a Jew, having walked across water, witnessed the dead risin, the sick cured, fish and water created, etc; how would you reasonably expect someone to have so must more blind a faith than someone supposedly there.

It seems Jesus's actual presence inspired so much confidence in those closest to him that Judas turned him in for money, John denied him, and none of the apostles understood him most of his ministry. And that's how clear he was to those standing right next to him. Now you feel that "absolute proof" is "self-evident" and always has been, when the chosen of God could not be bothered to believe consistantly?

Quote:

Different claims require different kinds of proof.

Absolutely, and you have a doozy of a claim.

Quote:

Suppose that you know a person is the greatest Wittgenstein scholar of all time. If he told you that Wittgenstein's first name was "Ludwig" or that Wittgenstein wrote a book called Philosophical Grammar, you would accept this on faith. Of course, it would be a faithful trust in light of the facts -- not in spite of the facts.

Hardly a good analogy. Accepting the reasonable claim of a know expert with access to information that should reasonably be availabe is a far cry from what you propose.

You tell me there is peanut-butter in your fridge, I will believe you. You tell me Elvis is in your fridge and I won't.

**Chrysostom** · 10-02-2002, 03:15 PM

(Previous) We shouldn't expect a certain type of proof to be universally used simply because God used it in one instance.

(JerryLove) Dozens of instances and repeatedly to many individuals.

(Me) The instance I was talking about is proof of the resurrection (in general). He proved His existence on Mount Carmel in a very different way, similarly with Daniel or Noah or Adam. He showed His prophecies in various ways to the Israelites. Each was distinct.

(Previous) Romans 1 also tells us that God HAS given the absolute proof of creation to everyone, but that we suppress it in our own unrighteousness.

(JerryLove) Yea, God's "chosen people" in Exodus; after witnessing the plagues, and the pillar of flame, and freedom from the Egyptians; couldn't be bothered to believe in God for 72 hours straight while Moses went up the hill.

Since Thomas decided not to believe Jesus was God when raised a Jew, having walked across water, witnessed the dead risin, the sick cured, fish and water created, etc; how would you reasonably expect someone to have so must more blind a faith than someone supposedly there.

It seems Jesus's actual presence inspired so much confidence in those closest to him that Judas turned him in for money, John denied him, and none of the apostles understood him most of his ministry. And that's how clear he was to those standing right next to him. Now you feel that "absolute proof" is "self-evident" and always has been, when the chosen of God could not be bothered to believe consistantly?

(Me) The fact that something is evident to everyone doesn't mean that everyone accepts it. As I said, we are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (as Romans 1 claims).

(Previous) Different claims require different kinds of proof.

(JerryLove) Absolutely, and you have a doozy of a claim.

(Me) Certainly

(Previous) Suppose that you know a person is the greatest Wittgenstein scholar of all time. If he told you that Wittgenstein's first name was "Ludwig" or that Wittgenstein wrote a book called Philosophical Grammar, you would accept this on faith. Of course, it would be a faithful trust in light of the facts -- not in spite of the facts.

(JerryLove) Hardly a good analogy. Accepting the reasonable claim of a know expert with access to information that should reasonably be availabe is a far cry from what you propose.

(Me) God is a known expert on everything with access to all information

Of couse, I don't expect you to accept any of this without first accepting the Triune God of Biblical Christianity as the foundation for your knowledge. However, I don't expect you to justifiably accept much of anything without first accepting the Triune God of Biblical Christianity as the foundation for your knowledge

JerryLove · 10-02-2002, 03:27 PM

Quote:

The instance I was talking about is proof of the resurrection (in general). He proved His existence on Mount Carmel in a very different way, similarly with Daniel or Noah or Adam. He showed His prophecies in various ways to the Israelites. Each was distinct.

What they shared was a strong emperical element.

Quote:

The fact that something is evident to everyone doesn't mean that everyone accepts it. As I said, we are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (as Romans 1 claims).

But my point is that the standard of proof required by the Jews, and the apostles, and such is much higher than the standard you would have me employ; indeed, higher than any standard employed by any modern Christian. The Bible is distincly not full of people believing without direct intervention (John the Baptist is perhaps a good exception?)

Quote:

God is a known expert on everything with access to all information Of couse, I don't expect you to accept any of this without first accepting the Triune God of Biblical Christianity as the foundation for your knowledge

That is the underlying impass.

**Chrysostom** · 10-02-2002, 03:56 PM

(Previous) The instance I was talking about is proof of the resurrection (in general). He proved His existence on Mount Carmel in a very different way, similarly with Daniel or Noah or Adam. He showed His prophecies in various ways to the Israelites. Each was distinct.

(JerryLove) What they shared was a strong emperical element.

(Me) Not pre-fulfillment prophecies

(Previous) The fact that something is evident to everyone doesn't mean that everyone accepts it. As I said, we are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (as Romans 1 claims).

(JerryLove) But my point is that the standard of proof required by the Jews, and the apostles, and such is much higher than the standard you would have me employ; indeed, higher than any standard employed by any modern Christian. The Bible is distincly not full of people believing without direct intervention (John the Baptist is perhaps a good exception?)

(Me) Luke 16:31
"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "

(Previous) God is a known expert on everything with access to all information Of couse, I don't expect you to accept any of this without first accepting the Triune God of Biblical Christianity as the foundation for your knowledge

(JerryLove) That is the underlying impass.

(Me) Yep

JerryLove · 10-02-2002, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Not pre-fulfillment prophecies

Prophets were required to establish legitemacy or be stoned to death as false. There was still an emperical burden of proof.

Quote:

"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "

And yet much point is made of "signs and miracles". Moses and the Prophets themselves were given many, and Jesus performed many. And when people didn't believe him, he performed more.

**Chrysostom** · 10-02-2002, 06:55 PM

(Previous) Not pre-fulfillment prophecies

(JerryLove) Prophets were required to establish legitemacy or be stoned to death as false. There was still an emperical burden of proof.

(Me) One common way legitimacy was established was when their prophecies came true

(Previous) "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "

(JerryLove) And yet much point is made of "signs and miracles". Moses and the Prophets themselves were given many, and Jesus performed many. And when people didn't believe him, he performed more.

(Me) I don't see how this is relevant.

JerryLove · 10-03-2002, 09:24 AM

Quote:

One common way legitimacy was established was when their prophecies came true

So emperical proof was a requirement for accepting someone as a prophet... and I have no such proof available.

[qoute]I don't see how this is relevant.[/quote] It's relevent because it's a contrary standard. You cite a quote that says no acts / emperical proof is required; and yet, that's exactly how everyone in the Bible went around establishing their credability... proof.