Evidence for God from Science

I read this comment in the forum, don't remember exactly were but it was by Blind Electric Ray, and in the thread it was posted nobody seemed to have anything to say about it.
Here goes:
“The Bible is not evidence for the belief in God but rather the source of the belief in God. Without the Bible, you would not believe in the Christian God. You couldn't. There would be no manifestation of the Christian God to believe in. To claim any probative value in the authority of the Bible as to the existence of God, or his construction of the universe, is viciously circular.”

In my opinion it is a sound argument against using the bible to prove God and/or creation theories.
What do you guys think ??

.
.
It's possible.

The fact of the matter is, there is enough evidence, historically and biblically to put faith in God. Likewise there is enough evidence to put your faith into man's wisdom. There remains, then, true choice. Do you put your trust in God or in man? It is YOUR choice.
.
.

Manfer84 wrote:I read this comment in the forum, don't remember exactly were but it was by Blind Electric Ray, and in the thread it was posted nobody seemed to have anything to say about it.
Here goes:
“The Bible is not evidence for the belief in God but rather the source of the belief in God. Without the Bible, you would not believe in the Christian God. You couldn't. There would be no manifestation of the Christian God to believe in. To claim any probative value in the authority of the Bible as to the existence of God, or his construction of the universe, is viciously circular.”

In my opinion it is a sound argument against using the bible to prove God and/or creation theories.
What do you guys think ??

I don't understand. Are you saying the Christian's faith lies solely in the bible? 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells the Christian to put everything to the test. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always have an answer ready for those who question us. What is your point? If the bible wasn't here then we wouldn't have the bible? But the bible IS here; so what is your point? If my aunty had testicles she'd be my uncle. Fact is she doesn't have testicles and she IS my aunty.

DannyM: “Are you saying the Christian's faith lies solely in the bible?”

Isn't it? Because if there was no Bible there would be no Christian God. Where would people get the idea of the Christian God if it wasn't for the Bible?

And my point, if you wanna call it that, was just to see what people thought about the quote I posted that using the Bible to prove God or creation theories was circular logic.
That's it, just wanted to know what people tought.

Manfer84 wrote:DannyM: “Are you saying the Christian's faith lies solely in the bible?”

Isn't it? Because if there was no Bible there would be no Christian God. Where would people get the idea of the Christian God if it wasn't for the Bible?

And my point, if you wanna call it that, was just to see what people thought about the quote I posted that using the Bible to prove God or creation theories was circular logic.
That's it, just wanted to know what people tought.

The Christian relies on all sorts of evidence outside of the bible. The bible is the inspired word of God, for sure, but when it comes to defending one's faith one has a tad more in one's locker than the evidence of the bible alone. Also, the bible is historically verified by countless scholars, so I fail to see that you have any point whatsoever. But please do point me to what, if anything, I'm missing...

Well, I'll say it again:
"And my point, if you wanna call it that, was just to see what people thought about the quote I posted that using the Bible to prove God or creation theories was circular logic."

Manfer84 wrote:Well, I'll say it again:
"And my point, if you wanna call it that, was just to see what people thought about the quote I posted that using the Bible to prove God or creation theories was circular logic."

I guess to the non-believer in general it might be. To the atheist it no doubt WOULD be. So I'll ask you a question. Has anything disproved the claims of the bible?

DannyM wrote:

Manfer84 wrote:Well, I'll say it again:
"And my point, if you wanna call it that, was just to see what people thought about the quote I posted that using the Bible to prove God or creation theories was circular logic."

I guess to the non-believer in general it might be. To the atheist it no doubt WOULD be. So I'll ask you a question. Has anything disproved the claims of the bible?

From the little research I've done I think that no, nothing has disprove the bible.

Manfer84 wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Manfer84 wrote:Well, I'll say it again:
"And my point, if you wanna call it that, was just to see what people thought about the quote I posted that using the Bible to prove God or creation theories was circular logic."

I guess to the non-believer in general it might be. To the atheist it no doubt WOULD be. So I'll ask you a question. Has anything disproved the claims of the bible?

From the little research I've done I think that no, nothing has disprove the bible.

Right. The bible for the Christian is the infallible word of God. Having said that, I wouldn't use the bible to "prove" the existence of God or creation, because it would be pointless presenting the absolute word of God to somebody who simply disregards its authority. On the other hand, if the non-believer wishes to debate the bible with the Christian, then the Christian can use the scripture at will. But, as I said, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells the Christian to put everything to the test. The Christian searches, within the scripture and outside of scripture. The Christian couldn't BE more open-minded.

Manfer84 wrote: Because if there was no Bible there would be no Christian God.

God exists independently of the Bible. God has been around forever while Moses was born around 3536 years ago. (Moses is the assumed author of the first 5 books of the Bible.)

Manfer84 wrote:Where would people get the idea of the Christian God if it wasn't for the Bible?

Heathen of all types have the evidence of God's very existence planted right inside them. Read this:

When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong... -Romans 2:14-15, The Message

«Nice» unbelievers instinctively know what is «right» and «wrong» or what is «good» and «bad». Usually, «good» unbelievers will even define these terms (good, bad, right, wrong) in a biblical manner, not realizing the curious - and very incongruent - position this puts them in. Most people instinctively know God's law to be correct but intellectually, they will not recognize it for a variety of reasons.

FL

The Bible is not the source of belief in God. It is a source and further it is not an exclusive source. People believed in Christ as Savior and Lord before the New Testament was written. Further people believed in Christ as Savior and Lord before the New Testament was recognized as inspired and the Cannon formed.

Therefore, I reject the premise that the original post rests upon. It is an absolute and exclusive statement that fails to recognize that Jesus Christ himself is the Word of God and that Jesus as God Himself is the revelation and unveiling of God.

The Bible is certainly an important part of how we know God and know about God, but it is not exclusively so. There is revelation through nature, and there is preservation of the testimony of Christ that reaches back unbroken through oral tradition and the present testimony of those who have believed in Christ and those whom the Holy Spirit resides.

The Bible in many senses is not then "the" source but a again "a" source and further it is in many regards a preservation of the testimony of Christ and the testimony about Christ.

It therefore is not circular.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Bible is not the source of belief in God. It is a source and further it is not an exclusive source. People believed in Christ as Savior and Lord before the New Testament was written. Further people believed in Christ as Savior and Lord before the New Testament was recognized as inspired and the Cannon formed.

Therefore, I reject the premise that the original post rests upon. It is an absolute and exclusive statement that fails to recognize that Jesus Christ himself is the Word of God and that Jesus as God Himself is the revelation and unveiling of God.

The Bible is certainly an important part of how we know God and know about God, but it is not exclusively so. There is revelation through nature, and there is preservation of the testimony of Christ that reaches back unbroken through oral tradition and the present testimony of those who have believed in Christ and those whom the Holy Spirit resides.

The Bible in many senses is not then "the" source but a again "a" source and further it is in many regards a preservation of the testimony of Christ and the testimony about Christ.

It therefore is not circular.

Thanks for that answer, it's really good and have succesfully (I think) disprove my first statement.
Just another question? what is your source for this statemente "to recognize that Jesus Christ himself is the Word of God and that Jesus as God Himself is the revelation and unveiling of God"

Without a newspaper there is no news. That's silly.
The bible is a reality because God is a reality.

jlay wrote:Without a newspaper there is no news. That's silly.
The bible is a reality because God is a reality.

jlay wrote:Without a newspaper there is no news. That's silly.
The bible is a reality because God is a reality.

You are right, if God is a reality then of course the Bible is real, but where did you get the first statement “God is reality”?. Let's put it this way better, what other way can someone “know” the Christian God without the Bible, can you go and teach about God to some natives somewhere (that of course don't have any idea about your religion) without the Bible?.

And if there wasn't newspaper, you could “see” the news using any other kind of media outlet. So the newspaper is just one small source for news with no more validity than the others. So I don't see how that example counts.