Contact

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

6 Comments

  1. That’s an excellent but complex question, Terry, and it’s answered more thoroughly in the three-volume set, Real Faith & Reason, which is available on the Free Downloads tab on this site. Or just go to http://RealReality.org/downloads. I’ll give the short answer at the end.

    First, let’s start with the “prove it to me” fallacy that the militant atheists use. Proverb: A young man wanted to show how wise he was, so he decided to stump the one man who was known as the wisest in the region. He decided to catch a small bird and ask the wise man whether it was dead or alive while holding the bird behind himself. His plan was to kill it if the wise man said it was alive. In this way, no matter what the wise man answered, the young man could prove that the wise man wasn’t so wise. So, he stood in front of the wise man with the bird in his hand behind his back and asked his question. “I have a bird behind my back. Is it dead or alive?” The wise man answered, “That’s up to you.”

    If the atheist sincerely wants the truth, the atheist will find Jesus Christ. If the atheist just wants to “win” an argument, the atheist will never find the truth. It’s up to the atheist. You’re just responsible to purify your heart and speak as the oracle of God. You aren’t responsible for the decisions of atheists.

    Looking at Merriam-Webster, the word “proof” has eight definitions with several sub-definitions, but only the third definition comes close to proving that something is true. Of course, in the dream-world of postmodernism, there is no truth, so, in that dream-world, nothing can be proved true. As a result, the meaning of the word “truth” has been blurred and blunted. Even the third meaning of the word “proof” in Merriam-Webster is weak: “something that induces certainty or establishes validity.” If drugs induce a feeling of certainty in me, that doesn’t make true the thing of which I now feel certain. The “establishes validity” part is stronger, but the term “validity” weakens the definition. Notice that the word “truth” is missing.

    For your purposes, you want proof that proves that God exists or that the Bible is the word of God without error. In this sense of the word “prove,” you want absolute proof of absolute reality. This is proof that will never change under any circumstance. No new discovery could possibly overturn the proof that you want. This type of proof must come from someone who knows all things and who cannot lie. You know that Person.

    Using observation, without divine revelation, you can create a convincing inductive argument for God and the Bible. You can prove the improbability of atheism and the probability of God to a high degree. And yet, this isn’t absolute proof. And your logic will require some assumptions. The atheist can wipe it all away by changing the assumptions. In addition, lack of proof isn’t what’s causing the atheist not to believe. It’s a spiritual problem rather than a logic problem. Still, there are people who aren’t hardened against God but who are being confused by a comprehensive brainwashing system that’s continually feeding them lies. You might be able to help those people get unstuck.

    That’s why philosophers of science say that science isn’t about proof. Science proves nothing. It shows what apparently works, but all such pragmatic “knowledge” isn’t knowledge of the truth but only what seems true at the time. Any so-called “fact” of science or “law” of science is subject to change or complete removal by the next discovery.

    Scientific impossibilities are really just improbabilities. The word “probable” implies a formula and certain numbers being plugged into the formula to calculate the probability. Where did the numbers come from? How do we know for certain that the formula gives a true calculation of the probability? In all cases, probabilities are calculated based on certain assumptions. Assumptions consist of made-up stuff. Made-up stuff can be true or false. If the assumptions are wrong, the calculation will be wrong.

    The reason that assumptions are always involved is that the human mind has no way to reason to absolute truth. Any proof for any conclusion must also be proved. And the proof for that proof must also be proved. This leads to an infinite regression of unproved proofs. Therefore, the human mind is incapable of self-generating proof or truth. Therefore, any human-generated knowledge is merely an opinion that depends on certain assumptions.

    Short answer:
    There’s only one absolute proof for the Bible and the God of the Bible. However, you can’t convince anyone who won’t look at the proof. Jesus Christ proves the Bible and the God of the Bible by divine revelation. The reason you believe in Jesus Christ is because the Father drew you to Jesus and you yielded yourself. When the Light of Christ struck you, you turned toward the Light rather than turning away from the Light. You were willing to look at the proof. Now, you are the light of the world because of Christ who lives in you and shines out through you. You can invite the atheist to know Jesus. You can shine that Light on the atheist. Everyone who seeks Jesus Christ finds Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ then begins to lead, teach, and correct every person who follows Him. He provides the discernment. God knows how to communicate and has all the power and authority to do so, but He won’t force Himself on an unwilling vessel. Jesus Christ authors the faith, but only if the person sincerely desires to know the Truth.

  2. Hello,
    As an apologist-in-training and one who engages atheists (militant usually), I FREQUENTLY come across the demand to provide either “evidence” or “proof” that God exists. Knowing full well that whatever I provide will be seen as invalid and/or inadequate given their SUBJECTIVE definition of either evidence or proof, I find myself stymied and ineffective in my defense.

    In order to better equip myself in these situations, is there such a thing as an EMPIRACLY-based (or mathematical, perhaps?) definition of “proof”?

    I ask because I once watched a brief presentation essentially illustrating the IMPROBABILITY of a protein spontaneously developing by itself (thus producing life).

    The presenter (who’s name I cannot recall at the moment), I recall, asserted that there is a MATHEMATICAL and/or statistical definition of “impossibility”. In other words, from what I understood, the probability of something occurring can be SO LOW that it is deemed “impossible” within the scientific community. Any knowledge of this by any chance?

    Thank you in advance for your time.

  3. Keith, immerse yourself in the Word of God, and the truth will set you in the right direction and God will place you in a group according to His will , for His purpose.

  4. Hello Keith,

    Thank you for contacting us. Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone in that area.

    Blessings!

    Petros

  5. Today I came across the seekfind website. I was extremely blessed with the content and spirit of
    the articles. I am desperately desiring to find brothers and sisters who adhere to the truth expounded
    in your website. I live in southeast Michigan and was wondering if you knew of any likeminded
    believers in my area. God bless you, Keith Owen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *