Proving God by proving the Bible

[RBD]

Since the God of the Bible says He cannot be proven nor found apart from His words, such as by physical sight, signs, philosophy, science, etc... then it is not possible to given any proof of the true God in heaven, apart from His words. Indeed, He says such seeking of proof is unbeliefe, vain, and decietful.

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Luk 16:31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Therefore, the only way to prove God is, and He is the God of the Bible, is to prove the Bible is true in all things. So, without sounding 'preachy' by only using God's words to prove Himself, then we can prove the Bible must be His proof by proving there is no contradiction between any of His words.

Proof that there is a God in heaven, and He is the Lord God of the Bible, is by the inerrancy of His words written by so many men, so many generations apart.

I propose to prove the God of the Bible is true, but proving there is no contradiction of His words of doctrine, and prophecy. If anyone believes there is a contradction, then let's see it. Otherwise, the Bible is perfectly true as written: The Creator of heaven and earth, and all creatures in heaven and on earth, is the Lord God of the Bible.

[bluegreenearth]

False. Indirect evidence is admitted to make a verdict about what cannot be proven, by eyewitness testimony. Without eyewitness testimony, the charge is unfalsifiable, because it can't be proven true or false.

No. Indirect evidence is why someone is tried in a court of law for committing a crime, without an eyewitness.

Eyewitness testimony is routinely demonstrated to be a notoriously unreliable form of evidence. Other evidence apart from eyewitness testimony is usually more reliable at "proving" when a claim of innocence is false beyond a reasonable doubt. Either way, a claim is not unfalsifiable when evidence of any kind is determined to be sufficient to falsify it.

Note: Your persistence in submitting responses like those above that consistently fail to properly address the originally stated objection demonstrate a potential misunderstanding of the issue. I recommend becoming familiar with the principle of Falsifiability before responding further. While you're at it, feel free to browse through this list of fallacies as well. Hopefully, that information may prove to be an enlightening resource for you. Take all the time you need.

It's not to prove the claim as fact, but rather to make a verdict, as if it were fact.

"The legal definition of direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a key fact. On the other hand, indirect evidence, is a set of facts that, if they are true, allows a reasonable person to believe the fact in question."

Indirect evidence allows a reasonable person to accept a falsifiable claim as the most reasonable explanation. Belief in a falsifiable claim is a separate issue involving an individual's subjective experience of being convinced by the evidence. However, none of this matters because the Biblical claims in question are unfalsifiable and do not correlate to the adjudication of falsifiable claims in science, history, or courts of law.

The Biblic unfalsifiable fact in question, is revelation of God and the spiritual kingdom. The indirect evidence is all the falsifiable facts. If they are true, then any person can reasonably believe the unfalsifiable revelation, as though it were fact.

Bible inerrancy in those things physically provable, leads to reasonable faith in those things spiritually unprovable.

And this is the argument at hand. Unerring indirect evidence allows for a reasonable belief in all the Bible.

Please take whatever time you need to research and properly understand how the argument above commits the Fallacy of Composition. If you prefer a reputable academic reference, consider the entry on Fallacies in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The argument is not about proving something unfalsifiable true, but about proving it can be true, and so reasonably believed.

No argument or proof is requested or required for this because the possibility of the claim being true is already entailed by virtue of it being unfalsifiable (again, by definition). It is important to remember that the possibility of the claim being false is also equally entailed. However, the mere fact that an unfalsifiable claim "can be true" does not provide a justification to believe it is true.

What is reasonable to believe about an unfalsifiable claim cannot be objectively determined through an evaluation of inerrant evidence because the possibility that the claim is false remains unavoidably entailed. In fact, the unfalsifiable claim not only retains the possibility of being false but the inerrancy of the supporting evidence doesn't even function to lower its probability of being false.

Note: Before you repeat the argument about indirect evidence in the courtroom as a rebuttal to this point, please review where I conclusively demonstrated how the claim of innocence is potentially falsifiable unlike the unfalsifiable claims in the Bible.

Don't strive over words that mean the same thing. It's a sign of a failed argument. Having faith in, is believing in, and vica versa.

The meanings of words are not objective but contingent upon how an individual defines and uses them. Apparently, you are using the word "faith" and the word "belief" interchangeably. It is fine if you want to do that, but you still need to resolve the objection I offered that distinguishes between the cognitive state of "hoping" a claim is true and the compulsion to "believe" it is true as a consequence of being convinced by the evidence. There is a nuance in meaning between those two concepts that I'm asking you to account for in your argument.

Not saying it isn't. At this time, the Big Bang is only a theory, that relies entirely upon indirect evidence of an expanding universe. Same as creation of the universe of stars all at once...

The point was that the Big Bang hypothesis was and is falsifiable. As such, the process for determining its acceptance should not be compared with the method you used to become convinced to believe in the unfalsifiable claims of the Bible.

Only scientists that choose not to consider creation. The creation scientist will continue to justify skepticism over a Big Bang.

If scientists could consider the unfalsifiable claim about divine creation, they would put it to the test and determine if it is false. They can't, though, because the claim is not falsifiable by any quantity or quality of evidence.

As for skepticism of the Big Bang hypothesis or any other falsifiable scientific claim, this is not only tolerated but encouraged within the scientific community. If the hypothesis is false, scientists would insist upon ruling it out rather than wasting any more time on it and proceed to test a different falsifiable hypothesis.

I do. I certainly believe the Genesis account, and the theory of evolution. At least the proven theory of evolution within a single species. I don't believe in the unproven theory of new species evolution from primates to humans.

The situation you are describing above does not address my original comment. It is possible to tentatively accept the entire falsifiable Theory of Evolution (within a single species and through the development of new species) as the most reasonable scientific explanation while also believing an unfalsifiable theistic creation hypothesis is more likely to be true. There is no contradiction there.

Too fine a line. I believe Gen 1 and proven evolutionary theory, that is limited to a single species. However, I do not accept any claim that primate-human evolution is reasonable nor scientifically possible.

It's impossible to believe Gen 1 as written, and also accept anything contradicting it, as reasonably possible.

It does not logically follow that, because you are unable to personally "accept" the entire Theory of Evolution as the most reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of species on account of your religious "belief," it must be impossible for anyone who shares your convictions to differentiate between the concept of "acceptance" and the concept of "belief." In other words, you are making a fallacious argument known as Affirming the Disjunct. In addition to the other fallacies I've brought to your attention thus far, please make an effort to familiarize yourself with how this fallacy occurs so as to identify where it exists in your argument and make the appropriate adjustments.

[RBD]

False. Indirect evidence is admitted to make a verdict about what cannot be proven, by eyewitness testimony. Without eyewitness testimony, the charge is unfalsifiable, because it can't be proven true or false.

No. Indirect evidence is why someone is tried in a court of law for committing a crime, without an eyewitness.

Either way, a claim is not unfalsifiable when evidence of any kind is determined to be sufficient to falsify it.

Ok, which makes perfect sense. No unfalsifiable case is brought to court, where there is no evidence, direct or indirect, that is sufficient to falsify it.

Therefore, in the case of the Bible being believable or not, none of it is unfalsifiable by abundance of indirect evidence sufficient to falsify it. None of the Bible is unfalsifiable myth:

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So long as the indirect evidence is true, then all the testimony in the case is falsifiable, and therefore possibly true. Only myth is unfalsifiable, and can't possibly be proven true by any evidence, direct or indirect.

Indirect evidence allows a reasonable person to accept a falsifiable claim as the most reasonable explanation.

Agreed again. The unerring indirect evidence of the Bible allows a reasonable person to accept the falsifiable claims as the most reasonable explanation.

Belief in a falsifiable claim is a separate issue involving an individual's subjective experience of being convinced by the evidence.

Agreed again. The argument is only about reasonable believability, not about verified proof by direct evidence. It's up to each member of the jury to decide believability or not.

And the Bible also adds the direct evidence of creation itself, as proof of the Creating Hand:

Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Rom 1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

However, none of this matters because the Biblical claims in question are unfalsifiable and do not correlate to the adjudication of falsifiable claims in science, history, or courts of law.

False, of course, since any evidence makes the claim falsifiable. And the Bible has scientific, historical, and testimonial evidence for any court of law to accept for trial.

Only that which has no evidence at all is unfalsifiable, and not accepted as a case in a court of law.

The argument is not about proving something unfalsifiable true, but about proving it can be true, and so reasonably believed.

No argument or proof is requested or required for this because the possibility of the claim being true is already entailed by virtue of it being unfalsifiable (again, by definition).

Correct. By your definition above, I no longer argue for anything unfalsifiable, which by definition has no evidence to make it falsifiable. Until there is any evidence of fire-breathing dragons, then they are unfalsifiable myth, without possibility of the claim be true...

The Bible has plenty of evidence at hand, so that the whole Book of testimony is falsifiable, and therefore claims that are possibly true.

It is important to remember that the possibility of the claim being false is also equally entailed.

Of course. Believability in falsifiable claims is necessary, if all the evidence is indirect.

However, most of the jury judges creation itself is direct evidence of the Creator. Agnostics and atheists are a distinct minority.

However, the mere fact that an unfalsifiable claim "can be true" does not provide a justification to believe it is true.

Since the mere fact of evidence makes a claim falsifiable, then by definition it justifies believing the claim is possibly true.

The Bible is falsifiable testimony, nor unfalsifiable at all. Falsifiability defined by evidence, means nothing can be both unfalsifiable and falsifiable at the same time.

Don't strive over words that mean the same thing. It's a sign of a failed argument. Having faith in, is believing in, and vica versa.

The meanings of words are not objective but contingent upon how an individual defines and uses them.

Word meanings are objectively defined, not subjectively interpreted, especially not in a case of lawful debate. No one is allowed to personally confuse, or even redefine words, for the same of argument.

"That depends on the meaning of what is, is." Is not an acceptable argument...

Apparently, you are using the word "faith" and the word "belief" interchangeably. It is fine if you want to do that, but you still need to resolve the objection I offered that distinguishes between the cognitive state of "hoping" a claim is true

Here is where the definition of faith and believe is changed, by introducing hope into the argument. The argument is about possibility of a falsifiable claim possibly being true by direct and/or indirect evidence at hand. The verdict of believability is not 'hoping' to believe the claim, but believing the claim as true.

The jury does not pronounce hope in a verdict. No verdict of the jury is, We hope the defendant is not guilty..."

and the compulsion to "believe" it is true as a consequence of being convinced by the evidence.

Exactly. Any evidence makes the claim falsifiable, and abundance of evidence compels being convinced by it. The falsifiable claim can be justifiably and reasonably believed by weight of any evidence, as being true.

Not saying it isn't. At this time, the Big Bang is only a theory, that relies entirely upon indirect evidence of an expanding universe. Same as creation of the universe of stars all at once...

The point was that the Big Bang hypothesis was and is falsifiable.

True, for the same reason creation of the universe is falsifiable. In fact, creation has the evidence of being a universe of stars at the beginning, without any evidence of a pre-universe of hot gas and dust alone...

As such, the process for determining its acceptance should not be compared with the method you used to become convinced to believe in the unfalsifiable claims of the Bible.

By definition of having any evidence, the Bible is not unfalsifiable. The process of discovering evidence is the same for the Bible and the Big Bang, being made falsifiable.

Only scientists that choose not to consider creation. The creation scientist will continue to justify skepticism over a Big Bang.

If scientists could consider the unfalsifiable claim about divine creation, they would put it to the test and determine if it is false.

Creation is not an unfalsifiable claim, by evidence of creation.

Based upon falsification's definition by having any evidence, neither the Bible nor creation can be called unfalsifiable, like that of fire-breathing dragon myths, which have no evidence at all.

By definition, nothing with any evidence can be unfalsifiable, and nothing without any evidence can be falsifiable. Nothing can be both falsifiable and unfalsifiable at the same time. Any case with any evidence, is a falsifiable case admissible to court.

The Bible is a falsifiable case, not unfalsifiable with no evidence at all.

If the hypothesis is false, scientists would insist upon ruling it out rather than wasting any more time on it and proceed to test a different falsifiable hypothesis.

Which is what makes you an objective observer and possible critic, not an ideologue like others that prematurely, and therefore falsely claim, the Big Bang is proven fact.

I do. I certainly believe the Genesis account, and the theory of evolution. At least the proven theory of evolution within a single species. I don't believe in the unproven theory of new species evolution from primates to humans.

The situation you are describing above does not address my original comment. It is possible to tentatively accept the entire falsifiable Theory of Evolution (within a single species and through the development of new species) as the most reasonable scientific explanation while also believing an unfalsifiable theistic creation hypothesis is more likely to be true.

Creation is a falsifiable case by evidence of creation. It's not possible to believe in new speciation by evolution, especially nor primate-human evolution, and the Gen 1 case testimony of animals being created in one day, and in one day man being created apart from all animals in God's image.

Too fine a line. I believe Gen 1 and proven evolutionary theory, that is limited to a single species. However, I do not accept any claim that primate-human evolution is reasonable nor scientifically possible.

It's impossible to believe Gen 1 as written, and also accept anything contradicting it, as reasonably possible.

It does not logically follow that, because you are unable to personally "accept" the entire Theory of Evolution as the most reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of species on account of your religious "belief,"

False accusation with prejudice. I don't accept the origin of species theory of evolution, based upon no evidence proving it. I do accept the evidence of intraspecies evolution, once created on earth.

it must be impossible for anyone who shares your convictions to differentiate between the concept of "acceptance" and the concept of "belief."

Another false accusation with prejudice. There is no belief in something, without accepting it as believable.

And jury verdicts of believability in falsifiable claims, are not made by 'hope', but by evidence at hand.

Stick to the evidence of the case at hand, and leave the personal prejudices outside the court. As a practicing believer in the Creator revealed in the Bible, I know the difference and practice it. I've said nothing about anyone's unbelief and/or atheism preventing them from reason, understanding, and logical arguments based upon evidence, that is not skewed by personal opinion.

[bluegreenearth]

Ok, which makes perfect sense. No unfalsifiable case is brought to court, where there is no evidence, direct or indirect, that is sufficient to falsify it.

Therefore, in the case of the Bible being believable or not, none of it is unfalsifiable by abundance of indirect evidence sufficient to falsify it. None of the Bible is unfalsifiable myth:

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

So long as the indirect evidence is true, then all the testimony in the case is falsifiable, and therefore possibly true. Only myth is unfalsifiable, and can't possibly be proven true by any evidence, direct or indirect.

Agreed again. The argument is only about reasonable believability, not about verified proof by direct evidence. It's up to each member of the jury to decide believability or not.

And the Bible also adds the direct evidence of creation itself, as proof of the Creating Hand:

Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Rom 1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

False, of course, since any evidence makes the claim falsifiable. And the Bible has scientific, historical, and testimonial evidence for any court of law to accept for trial.

Only that which has no evidence at all is unfalsifiable, and not accepted as a case in a court of law.

Correct. By your definition above, I no longer argue for anything unfalsifiable, which by definition has no evidence to make it falsifiable. Until there is any evidence of fire-breathing dragons, then they are unfalsifiable myth, without possibility of the claim be true...

The Bible has plenty of evidence at hand, so that the whole Book of testimony is falsifiable, and therefore claims that are possibly true.

Of course. Believability in falsifiable claims is necessary, if all the evidence is indirect.

However, most of the jury judges creation itself is direct evidence of the Creator. Agnostics and atheists are a distinct minority.

Since the mere fact of evidence makes a claim falsifiable, then by definition it justifies believing the claim is possibly true.

The Bible is falsifiable testimony, nor unfalsifiable at all. Falsifiability defined by evidence, means nothing can be both unfalsifiable and falsifiable at the same time.

Word meanings are objectively defined, not subjectively interpreted, especially not in a case of lawful debate. No one is allowed to personally confuse, or even redefine words, for the same of argument.

"That depends on the meaning of what is, is." Is not an acceptable argument...

Here is where the definition of faith and believe is changed, by introducing hope into the argument. The argument is about possibility of a falsifiable claim possibly being true by direct and/or indirect evidence at hand. The verdict of believability is not 'hoping' to believe the claim, but believing the claim as true.

The jury does not pronounce hope in a verdict. No verdict of the jury is, We hope the defendant is not guilty..."

Exactly. Any evidence makes the claim falsifiable, and abundance of evidence compels being convinced by it. The falsifiable claim can be justifiably and reasonably believed by weight of any evidence, as being true.

True, for the same reason creation of the universe is falsifiable. In fact, creation has the evidence of being a universe of stars at the beginning, without any evidence of a pre-universe of hot gas and dust alone...

By definition of having any evidence, the Bible is not unfalsifiable. The process of discovering evidence is the same for the Bible and the Big Bang, being made falsifiable.

Creation is not an unfalsifiable claim, by evidence of creation.

Based upon falsification's definition by having any evidence, neither the Bible nor creation can be called unfalsifiable, like that of fire-breathing dragon myths, which have no evidence at all.

By definition, nothing with any evidence can be unfalsifiable, and nothing without any evidence can be falsifiable. Nothing can be both falsifiable and unfalsifiable at the same time. Any case with any evidence, is a falsifiable case admissible to court.

The Bible is a falsifiable case, not unfalsifiable with no evidence at all.

Which is what makes you an objective observer and possible critic, not an ideologue like others that prematurely, and therefore falsely claim, the Big Bang is proven fact.

Creation is a falsifiable case by evidence of creation. It's not possible to believe in new speciation by evolution, especially nor primate-human evolution, and the Gen 1 case testimony of animals being created in one day, and in one day man being created apart from all animals in God's image.

False accusation with prejudice. I don't accept the origin of species theory of evolution, based upon no evidence proving it. I do accept the evidence of intraspecies evolution, once created on earth.

Another false accusation with prejudice. There is no belief in something, without accepting it as believable.

And jury verdicts of believability in falsifiable claims, are not made by 'hope', but by evidence at hand.

Stick to the evidence of the case at hand, and leave the personal prejudices outside the court. As a practicing believer in the Creator revealed in the Bible, I know the difference and practice it. I've said nothing about anyone's unbelief and/or atheism preventing them from reason, understanding, and logical arguments based upon evidence, that is not skewed by personal opinion.

Nothing in that response demonstrates a competent understanding of the concepts that were previously explained to you. The notion of "unfalsifiable" as described in your comments above is not at all consistent with how it was presented to you in my original objection. Furthermore, much of your argumentation is incoherent and completely fails to resolve the various logical fallacies that were brought to your attention earlier. You must revise your argument such that it no longer commits those logical fallacies if possible. The appropriate reference materials that may help you develop a sufficient competency in the recognition of logical fallacies are available at the links embedded in my previous posts. Please be encouraged to investigate those and other reputable academic resources on the topic of logical fallacies.

I've led you to water but cannot make you drink. Respectfully, if you can not or will not acquire a functional knowledge of how logical fallacies can occur in argumentation, then there is nothing more to discuss at this point. I'm not going to waste your and my valuable time by repeating the same objections just to have you respond with the same misunderstandings and logical fallacies all over again in an endless cycle.

[RBD]

Nothing in that response demonstrates a competent understanding of the concepts that were previously explained to you. The notion of "unfalsifiable" as described in your comments above is not at all consistent with how it was presented to you in my original objection. Furthermore, much of your argumentation is incoherent and completely fails to resolve the various logical fallacies that were brought to your attention earlier. You must revise your argument such that it no longer commits those logical fallacies if possible. The appropriate reference materials that may help you develop a sufficient competency in the recognition of logical fallacies are available at the links embedded in my previous posts. Please be encouraged to investigate those and other reputable academic resources on the topic of logical fallacies.

I've led you to water but cannot make you drink. Respectfully, if you can not or will not acquire a functional knowledge of how logical fallacies can occur in argumentation, then there is nothing more to discuss at this point. I'm not going to waste your and my valuable time by repeating the same objections just to have you respond with the same misunderstandings and logical fallacies all over again in an endless cycle.

I usually just say there's nothing new, and so there's no need to keep rehashing old stuff.

I do want to thank you for the debate on unfalsifiable vs falsifiable. Once again, it's an artful device to imply the Bible is a myth, by applying the term 'unfalsifiable' to it. At first I was willing to acknowledge that some of the Bible is unfalsifiable. But it didn't really sit well with me, that anything in the Bible could possibly be compared with fire-breathing dragon myths. But you helped to resolve that, when you stated that any evidence at all, including indirect, makes any claim in the Bible falsifiable.

It's also been useful to compare the historical debate about Bible claims of God, as a case presented in a court of law, where the abundance of indirect evidence can prove the veracity of all Bible testimonies.

In the end, it simply confirms my own experience: I only came to believe in the God of the Bible, when by inerrancy, the Book itself proved to me, that the personal testimonies are true: God must be the one Author inspiring all of them. I.e. the physical fact of an infallible Book on earth proves there can indeed be a God in heaven.

[bluegreenearth]

I'm not re-engaging the debate but correcting a misrepresentation quoted below for the sake of other people who were following the dialogue:

But you helped to resolve that, when you stated that any evidence at all, including indirect, makes any claim in the Bible falsifiable.

What I intended by my statement in the earlier post was that a claim qualifies as falsifiable when the evidence we would expect to find if it is false can be reasonably identified and reasonably discovered if it exists. Many claims contained in the Bible are, therefore, not falsifiable because Christian theists are either unable to reasonably identify the evidence they would expect to find if those claims are false or they demand disconfirming evidence that is not reasonably discoverable.

[RBD]

But you helped to resolve that, when you stated that any evidence at all, including indirect, makes any claim in the Bible falsifiable.

What I intended by my statement in the earlier post was that a claim qualifies as falsifiable when the evidence we would expect to find if it is false can be reasonably identified and reasonably discovered if it exists.

Whatever your intent, your previous definition was much simpler and understandable: if any evidence exists with a claim, then the claim is made falsifiable.

This is the common court rule for admissible evidence, which makes any claim defacto falsifiable, and so admissible into court. Weight of evidence demands a court hearing. If the evidence is proven true, then any personal testimony can be accepted as true, with a lawful verdict given.

That is why the Bible has been the most scrutinized Book in history, and many have sought to disprove the record of evidence, in order to disprove the veracity of the personal testimonies, that God is the Author. So long as the evidence remains unerring, then the testimonies can also be accepted as true.

Christian theists are either unable to reasonably identify the evidence they would expect to find if those claims are false or they demand disconfirming evidence that is not reasonably discoverable.

Only evidence that is discoverable. The personal testimonies are judged by the evidence that can be proven or disproven.

In the end. The argument is about believability of all the Bible, based upon inerrancy in the Bible record. The testimonies are made falsifiable by the recorded evidence. Inerrancy of the discoverable evidence reasonably allows any jurist to conclude the Bible as all true. Errors in the record therefore can likewise supply a reasonable verdict of false testimonies by the writers.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to RBD in post #346]

List of Fallacies.