Is there proof or not?

[boatsnguitars]

Help me understand this.

Christians will claim they have ample evidence of the Holy Spirit, or God based on the feelings they get, or what they call evidence., or, "He'll prove himself to you when you believe.".

But, they also say God can't be tested for, and you can't prove God's existence because it would take away Free Will, or "God doesn't work that way".

These two ideas - that are probably mentioned a million times on this forum - are contradictory.

Can a Christian please explain, for once and for all, the rules on how God can be detected, but not proven, but proven and not detected, or whatever.

It makes no sense to me, but I'm an idiot, so maybe I don't get the simple logic.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
But, they also say God can't be tested for, and you can't prove God's existence because it would take away Free Will, or "God doesn't work that way".
...
Can a Christian please explain, for once and for all, the rules on how God can be detected, but not proven, but proven and not detected, or whatever.
...

I can't prove anything. But, I think people would still have free will, even if God's existence would be absolutely proven for them. However, I don't think proving god's existence is crucial, because eternal life is not promised for those who are sure God exists, it is for those who are righteous.

And, I think maybe God could be compared to gravity, or electricity, you can't see them, so, how do you know they exist? By the influence. Maybe so, but one could always say the reason was something else.

Thank you...on first look. I like something that is both honest (as far as possible) and thought - provoking, and perhaps profound. But let's see.

Prove is always good. Like I reckon I can Prove some Biblical things wrong and false. But it is more usually a case of probability. Extraordinary evidence for instance. Often misunderstood, but it's like this: someone says they have a pet dog. That could be true or not, but it is credible. it is quite usual.
He provides 'archaeological' evidence. a photo of him with a dog. That may not be his dog, nor him. If he produces Id with his face on and a licence for this dog, it's very credible. Not 100% even without appealing to brain in a vat, but very, very credible.

If however, he claims a fire -breathing dragon in his garage, that is NOT credible or how the world works; 'Miracles don't happen'. But one dragon (like the resurrection) could be a one - off. though that's not a fair analogy (1) It is going to require extraordinary evidence and even a photo of him with his dragon will look dubious in the age of photoshop. And even if people believed in dragons as much as Flying saucers (at least in America) that would not prove they were real.

Next of course, define the terms. What is meant by God? If one talks of a creator, the make of Life, consciousness of Morals, one is a theist, but could be Hindu, Muslim or Deist. Irreligious theists ( "Agnostics") are the kin of atheists, even if they hate us. And we atheists don't mind agnostic - god as it wants nothing from us, as we want nothing from IT, other than to keep the sun running.

The debate is of course about the god of a religion and that is why Cosmic origin gambits fail as soon as one asks 'Which God?' So to cut to the chase, it comes down to 'The Bible tells us which god'. So can we trust it? That is what the discussion really is, and always has been; but we do get buried in the irrelevant fine tuning and DNA codes arguments, which don't tell us 'Which god'.

Free will is something else. It is tied to debating the Bible, and not only the problem of evil of ANY intervening god, but particularly the actions of the god of the Bible and shifting the blame to humans. Of course if one can show the Eden scenario unfeasible and probably mythical, it invalidates the whole original sin dogma, and morals is better explained as a human social convention based on evolved animal instincts. No God Needed. No God Wanted.

I have to disagree with about eternal Life through righteousness. Paul is clear - salvation is through Faith, not works. You may reject Paul, but then you have made yourself the head of your own religion. I wouldn't even call it Christianity as that would imply heresy. Faith, not works is the Dogma. Deeds for sure are needed to keep the Grace well - laundered with shining whiteness, but it does not GET you grace; Jesusfaith does.

But that still leaves us with the OP, how do we prove a god? Well, this is rhetorical, as that was answered long ago. You can't, as if you could, it would have been done long ago. but long ago, the gaps for god closed and ruled out a god as surely as a flat earth and geocentric system, It is too late for evidence to make the case, which now depends on denial (and shielding people from doubt, of course), to be frank. The sorta - god - claim itself depends on gaps for a god (name your own) and is irrelevant until you show which god and which religion, and that is down to Bible credibility, or incredibility, rather. And that really the NT as OT just leads to Judaism or Islam, and specifically the case for the resurrection.

For, as Paul made it pretty much clear, Christianity, its' credibility and its' go, stands or falls on the credibility of the resurrection; and that is really the only argument that matters.

(1) there would be only one son of God but one would expect a species or phylum of dragons.

[1213]

...
How can I do this with God? And what are you measuring with God? Divine Power, or God Himself? What is actually doing the work when you talk about "influence"?
What influence are you talking about?

God's influence can be seen from what He has done, or what He has promised to do. For example He made certain promises for Jews and has kept the promises.

[1213]

...Like I reckon I can Prove some Biblical things wrong and false....

No, you can't.

I have to disagree with about eternal Life through righteousness. Paul is clear - salvation is through Faith, not works. You may reject Paul, but then you have made yourself the head of your own religion. I wouldn't even call it Christianity as that would imply heresy. Faith, not works is the Dogma. Deeds for sure are needed to keep the Grace well - laundered with shining whiteness, but it does not GET you grace; Jesusfaith does.

Christian means a disciple of Jesus. Not a disciple of Paul. If Paul would be in contradiction with Jesus, disciple of Jesus rejects Paul. But, he is not in contradiction with Jesus, when you understand correctly what they say.

[brunumb]

God's influence can be seen from what He has done, or what He has promised to do. For example He made certain promises for Jews and has kept the promises.

Please be specific and demonstrate that what was done could only have been the outcome of God's involvement.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Like I reckon I can Prove some Biblical things wrong and false....

No, you can't.

Yes I can, yes I can, yes I can!
I can't get you to accept, admit understand or even look, I know, but I can Prove it, if we can prove anything in this solipsistic universe.

I have to disagree with about eternal Life through righteousness. Paul is clear - salvation is through Faith, not works. You may reject Paul, but then you have made yourself the head of your own religion. I wouldn't even call it Christianity as that would imply heresy. Faith, not works is the Dogma. Deeds for sure are needed to keep the Grace well - laundered with shining whiteness, but it does not GET you grace; Jesusfaith does.

Christian means a disciple of Jesus. Not a disciple of Paul. If Paul would be in contradiction with Jesus, disciple of Jesus rejects Paul. But, he is not in contradiction with Jesus, when you understand correctly what they say.

Fiddling and sophistry, you evasive little wriggler you. Paul told us about Christianity. If you don't accept Paul's Christianity, then you have made up your own religion. And how many times have i found myself saying that!

But you can cherry pick the Bible as much as you like. You know better than Paul who supposedly got it from the disciples, if not over tea and biscuits with Jesus in the Third heaven, but Nooo...nooo, you have God downloading the Truth into your head and mere Scripture counts for nothing compared to your Intuitive wisdom.

I thank nongod fifty times a day that I am not a Christian, even a heretical one.

[TRANSPONDER]

God's influence can be seen from what He has done, or what He has promised to do. For example He made certain promises for Jews and has kept the promises.

Please be specific and demonstrate that what was done could only have been the outcome of God's involvement.

Oh goody! Apologetic from prophecy. Tyre down the drain. Babylon...I think gone, but still some debate (it was definitely Not destroyed by Persia, for sure). Daniel, down the tube. Datable to 164 B.C through matching 'prophecy' to known history. NT prophecy...my mouth watereth over. Nativity prophecies out of context, historically dubious and not found in a supposedly inerrant scripture. OT prophecies do not go missing.


Judas' death, both (Matthew and SActs) cobbled together from misquoted bits of of OT about the price of the shepherd's services and throwing the cash to the 'potter' in the temple. And looting the campsite of the enemy becomes hiring a new disciple to make up numbers. To me that one is the testcase for why Prophecy isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Of course we have the endlessly deferred 2nd coming. Though I suspect that Luke tried to imply that it happened within the month and the Kingdom of God has been here ever since. And of course the ongoing prophecy of the state of Israel. Supposedly predicted in Scripture.

But we know how that works Like science in the Bible. Don' leave dung lying around the tabernacle. Wow! Advanced medical knowledge!! In fact the Quran can do a marginally better job of divine science. They at least knew how to count the bones of the thousands of victims they came across again when they returned from a campaign of Spreading God's Word.

[boatsnguitars]

...
How can I do this with God? And what are you measuring with God? Divine Power, or God Himself? What is actually doing the work when you talk about "influence"?
What influence are you talking about?

God's influence can be seen from what He has done, or what He has promised to do. For example He made certain promises for Jews and has kept the promises.

Be specific. And make sure you are very clear on why it could have only been God's actions that brought about this, and make sure you prove God Himself made this promise, not that it was claimed that God made it.

[historia]

You have only to browse the Atheist Experience to hear phone in Believers lining up to to claim that they have Proof. If God didn't want to prove He exists as that would nullify Free Will, then there is no clear proof.

Now we're back to participants here giving us their characterization of what their opponents are saying.

This is not a useful way to explore a topic. As we already saw above in the example boatsnguitars provided, it's easy to invent a contradiction or other problem in your opponents' argument by (accidentally) mischaracterizing it.

In other words, not only not adequate evidence but really no good evidence at all.

Your opinion is duly noted. But the question we are discussing is the claim that there are contradictions in Christian assertions about evidence for God, not whether you personally find the evidence for God convincing or not.

[1213]

God's influence can be seen from what He has done, or what He has promised to do. For example He made certain promises for Jews and has kept the promises.

Please be specific and demonstrate that what was done could only have been the outcome of God's involvement.

Be specific. And make sure you are very clear on why it could have only been God's actions that brought about this, and make sure you prove God Himself made this promise, not that it was claimed that God made it.

Person who doesn't want to believe, can always say, "it was because of some other reason". This is in all matters, even in the "scientific truths". People can't say anything that could not be disbelieved.

But, for example God said He will scatter Jews, if they do wrong things and He will gather them back, if they do right things.

I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
Leviticus 26:33

Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God; but I will for their sake remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am Yahweh.'"
Leviticus 26:44-45

It shall happen, when all these things are come on you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you shall call them to mind among all the nations, where Yahweh your God has driven you, and shall return to Yahweh your God, and shall obey his voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul; that then Yahweh your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion on you, and will return and gather you from all the peoples, where Yahweh your God has scattered you. If any of your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of the heavens, from there will Yahweh your God gather you, and from there will he bring you back:
Deuteronomy 30:1-4

Obviously you can wave your hand and say, it was because of something else. My point is not actually to prove God, just to show one example of what would be the signs if God is real.

[1213]

Fiddling and sophistry, you evasive little wriggler you. Paul told us about Christianity. If you don't accept Paul's Christianity, then you have made up your own religion. And how many times have i found myself saying that!

Why do you think I should reject Jesus and replace him with Paul, if they would be in contradiction?

Do you have some good reason to ignore what is said in the Bible?

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

By what the Bible tells, a Christian is a disciple of Jesus. And person is a disciple of Jesus, if he remains in word of Jesus. Paul is not crucial in that.

However, I don't think Paul and Jesus are in contradiction.

It seems to me that you have made a baseless straw-man argument.