Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ali smack

how do religious people prove religion

196 posts in this topic

how do religious people offer proof of there religions?

i'm just interested to hear and see proof?

BTW i'm not insulting anyone's beliefs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh...isn't religion based on faith? I mean, one doesn't have to *prove* anything where religion is concerned. And to be quite frank, there's really no way to prove such things outside of faith.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't prove, we can't disprove. Hense the fight.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no empirical evidence for my beliefs. But then, I have never claimed to have empirical proof. So why should I be required to provide it for you? I have my personal proofs/personal experiences that convince me of my views. But just as your personal experience is unlikely to convince me of your world view, so is my personal experience unlikely to convince you of my world view.

So at its most basic level, there is no empirical proof. But I suspect you knew that before you started this thread. In the absence of such empirical proof, all we have is personal beliefs and experiences, and I'm sure we'll be on this merry-go-round for a long long time debating our experiences. I prefer to simply accept that we have no proof, and move on to other religious-type matters that are so much more interesting to discuss.

In any case, whatever it is you do or do not believe in, I wish you the best :)

~ Regards, PA

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same way scientists prove there was a big bang. They don't and can't.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Listen to the millions of witnesses over thousands of years who have given testimony to God, Jesus, the angels and saints in heaven. They also found the Ark and the Egyptian chariots under the Red Sea.

Edited by notforgotten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also found the Ark and the Egyptian chariots under the Red Sea.

Show me.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to the millions of witnesses over thousands of years who have given testimony to God, Jesus, the angels and saints in heaven. They also found the Ark and the Egyptian chariots under the Red Sea.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm

The Truth:

Much of this eRumor is based on the findings of Ron Wyatt, a colorful and controversial amateur archeologist who claimed to have found Noah's ark, the Biblical Ark of the Covenant, the location of Sodom And Gomorrah, the Tower of Babel, the true site of Mt. Sinai, the true site of the crucifixion of Jesus, and the original stones of the Ten Commandments. He was a passionate and sincere man, according to his supporters, but his critics abound and scientists and archeologists regarded him as an untrained maverick at best and there are some who regarded his as a fraud. Wyatt died from cancer in 1999.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of amateurish discoveries, didn't someone also find Jesus' bones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Listen to the millions of witnesses over thousands of years who have given testimony to God, Jesus, the angels and saints in heaven. They also found the Ark and the Egyptian chariots under the Red Sea.

Speaking of amateurish discoveries, didn't someone also find Jesus' bones?

Obviously! Just look at the thousands of people throughout history who've owned one of his fingers! It must be true! And apparently he had hundreds of hands...

To answer the OP, we can't. That's why it's faith. Anyone who claims to be able to definitively prove any god's existence is lying.

Edited by Setton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious people offer proof of their religion by being religious.

re·li·gion (r-ljn)

n.

1.

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Idiom:

get religion Informal

1. To become religious or devout.

2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.

But that's not really what your asking is it??

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same way scientists prove there was a big bang. They don't and can't.

You forgot to add "theory" to "big bang". You would be surprised the difference that makes. Also it would make the "prove" in your sentence obsolete.

It is one thing to write something down with no proof and claim it to be factual. It is a whole other thing to propose a theory which can openly be contested and/or modified... Which is what the big bang THEORY is.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do religious people offer proof of there religions?

i'm just interested to hear and see proof?

The same way anyone proves any theory, with hardcore evidence that is non-contradictory to other evidence.

As for the evidence for Monotheism as opposed to Polytheism, Pantheism, and Atheism; here are the two greatest evidences that due to space and time restrictions I cannot go into real thoroughly right now, and there are plenty of other arguments as well, but these are quite possibly the greatest:

  • Cosmological Argument - The entire known universe began out of nothing; Matter, Energy, Space, Time, and the natural Laws of Physics themselves began at the moment of the Big Bang. Essentially the entire universe is one big effect, with no known natural cause (which a natural cause is a logical contradiction in and of itself due to the fact that the natural laws of physics themselves began at the moment of the Big Bang). Logically since the universe has no natural cause, and assuming the scientifically and empirically foundational Law of Causality (everything that begins or changes has a cause) is true, the most Logically reasonable conclusion from that is a supernatural cause; meaning the universe was caused by either an immaterial uncaused object or an immaterial uncaused mind... This is evidenced by: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Universal Expansion of the Spacetime Membrane itself, the Big Bang Radiation Afterglow of the Big Bang itself discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965, and the 1992 COBE satellite's findings of the Universe's precise expansion rate.
  • Teleological Argument - The precise Laws of physics for the Universe in order to support life. There are more than 100 narrowly defined cosmological constants that strongly point to an immaterial uncaused mind (an intelligent designer, a.k.a. God) as opposed to an immaterial uncaused object... To give a few examples: 1) If the Universe's gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore, neither would we. 2) If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun. 3) If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed. (1992 COBE Satellite's discoveries as described above) 4) Any of the Laws of Physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on Earth. 5) If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the Earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vaccum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike Earth. 6) If the thickness of Earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible. 7) If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the Earth too cold to support life. 8) If the rotation of the Earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great... These are just a few... Astrophysicist Hugh Ross calculated the probability that these and other constants - 122 in all - would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e., without divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking: one chance in 10138 - that's one chance in one with 138 zeros after it. There are only 1070atoms in the entire universe. In effect, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all. Therefore the most logical conclusion is that an uncaused immaterial concious mind created and designed the Universe.

Of course many will still not believe, many will interpret this evidence differently, and many will even block it from their mind in order to escape it. However the logic and evidence is inescapable. To me, God's existance is only logical, and that doesn't even include the evidence for Christianity. Therefore I think I have more than enough evidence for my faith.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cosmological Argument - Logically since the universe has no natural cause, and assuming the scientifically and empirically foundational Law of Causality (everything that begins or changes has a cause) is true, the most Logically reasonable conclusion from that is a supernatural cause; meaning the universe was caused by either an immaterial uncaused object or an immaterial uncaused mind...

String theory offers a natural cause.
Teleological Argument - The precise Laws of physics for the Universe in order to support life. There are more than 100 narrowly defined cosmological constants that strongly point to an immaterial uncaused mind (an intelligent designer, a.k.a. God) as opposed to an immaterial uncaused object... To give a few examples:

If the universe was different, then the universe would be different. Therefore God exists.

How is that even an argument? You're asserting these contants can and have been modified.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teleological Argument - The precise Laws of physics for the Universe in order to support life. There are more than 100 narrowly defined cosmological constants that strongly point to an immaterial uncaused mind (an intelligent designer, a.k.a. God) as opposed to an immaterial uncaused object... To give a few examples: 1) If the Universe's gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore, neither would we. 2) If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun. 3) If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed. (1992 COBE Satellite's discoveries as described above) 4) Any of the Laws of Physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on Earth. 5) If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the Earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vaccum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike Earth. 6) If the thickness of Earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible. 7) If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the Earth too cold to support life. 8) If the rotation of the Earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great... These are just a few... Astrophysicist Hugh Ross calculated the probability that these and other constants - 122 in all - would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e., without divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking: one chance in 10138 - that's one chance in one with 138 zeros after it. There are only 1070atoms in the entire universe. In effect, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all. Therefore the most logical conclusion is that an uncaused immaterial concious mind created and designed the Universe.

Of course many will still not believe, many will interpret this evidence differently, and many will even block it from their mind in order to escape it. However the logic and evidence is inescapable. To me, God's existance is only logical, and that doesn't even include the evidence for Christianity. Therefore I think I have more than enough evidence for my faith.

This entire argument is fundamentally flawed. Effectively you're saying that if things were a tiny bit different, we wouldn't be here. If you think about it, there's no reason these conditions couldn't have failed 10138 times. We wouldn't have existed to know about it. Can you see how it is flawed to say it's an incredible chance to observe a 1 in 10138 occurrence when there is no way to observe the other 10138-1 possibilities?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no empirical evidence for my beliefs. But then, I have never claimed to have empirical proof. So why should I be required to provide it for you? I have my personal proofs/personal experiences that convince me of my views. But just as your personal experience is unlikely to convince me of your world view, so is my personal experience unlikely to convince you of my world view.

Hi PA,

I guess the question then becomes, to what extent do you entertain and respect (the beliefs, not the believers; I find you to be very respectful of everyone to your credit) other people's world views and beliefs that similarly have 'no empirical evidence'? There are countless beliefs that are in conflict with yours, so doesn't, or shouldn't, that temper the things you believe based on your own personal proofs or experience? Without empirical evidence, doesn't that place all these unevidenced world views, a large set of which are mutually exclusive, on the same footing? If it does, then what is the basis for thinking your world view is the true one?

I guess I agree to some extent that everyone's world view is based somewhat on personal experience, but I don't think my world view is true based solely on that personal experience: there is abundant evidence that personal experience can be misleading and I know that my personal experience is very limited in scope. I wouldn't try to convince you of the correctness of my world view based on my personal experience, I would try and base it on empirical evidence, as well as what is the consistent and logical position to take when empirical evidence is lacking.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do religious people offer proof of there religions?

i'm just interested to hear and see proof?

BTW i'm not insulting anyone's beliefs!

One believes on the basis of faith alone. At least, that's what religious teachers say. Those who need proof (or even evidence) lack faith.

The problem is that there is no proof of anything supernatural or, to the nest of my knowledge, even evidence of anything supernatural (I am assuming that "god" is defined as outside of Nature.).

Rational thinking starts with no assumptions: we must demonstrate even our own existence. We do not assume that there is no god, but neither can we assume that there is one. We must wait until evidence is found. Because evidence has not been found, we cannot use god to demonstrate or prove anything. To theists, that sounds like atheism. In fact, it is a neutral position. Unable to invoke a god, we must explain the universe without one. As long as god is not necessary to our explanation, this works just fine. So far, god has not been necessary.

But tomorrow, we might find evidence of god. Or we might have to insert the line "Then a miracle occurs," into our proofs. In that case, science will need to be rethought. But as that hasn't happened, yet, it appears we are safe.

So if a theist wishes to "prove" god, he must find a phenomenon that clearly exists and absolutely requires god for its existence. Again, it's not that god does or doesn't exist; it's that the universe exists whether or not there is a god.

OK, theists. Ball's in your court.

Doug

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PA,

I guess the question then becomes, to what extent do you entertain and respect (the beliefs, not the believers; I find you to be very respectful of everyone to your credit) other people's world views and beliefs that similarly have 'no empirical evidence'? There are countless beliefs that are in conflict with yours, so doesn't, or shouldn't, that temper the things you believe based on your own personal proofs or experience? Without empirical evidence, doesn't that place all these unevidenced world views, a large set of which are mutually exclusive, on the same footing? If it does, then what is the basis for thinking your world view is the true one?

I guess I agree to some extent that everyone's world view is based somewhat on personal experience, but I don't think my world view is true based solely on that personal experience: there is abundant evidence that personal experience can be misleading and I know that my personal experience is very limited in scope. I wouldn't try to convince you of the correctness of my world view based on my personal experience, I would try and base it on empirical evidence, as well as what is the consistent and logical position to take when empirical evidence is lacking.

That is where "faith" comes in Liquid Gardens. I trust that I have chosen the path that leads to God and heaven. Part of this faith is accepting things I can't empirically verify. But that doesn't mean I see all paths as equal paths to God. I see people who genuinely believe that they have the truth, even if that truth is different to mine. That is why I fully respect someone for having the conviction in their life to follow something. Even if it is not what I believe, I understand WHY they made the choice they did. I see the beauty in the world view that they have chosen to abide by, and I understand why it gives them purpose and joy and wonder. Therefore, no matter how "wrong" I believe it to be, I respect them for it. But because of my Faith, I still believe that I have chosen correctly. I believe that if someone were to lay out all that I believe Christianity teaches, the wonder of Jesus' sacrifice, the expression of love we therefore show in loving God and loving our neighbours, in meeting up with believers who have made the same choice, in accepting that we have sinned but because of God's mercy we have eternal life.

But I digress, this is my personal faith. I cannot turn away from it, for to me it is as true as this laptop I'm typing on. Allah, Gautama, Krishna, all these other deities aren't real for me (ok, Gautama wasn't a deity, but you get my meaning). I'll respect someone for believing different, but I cannot ever accept all views as equally correct.

Hope this helps :)

~ PA

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One believes on the basis of faith alone. At least, that's what religious teachers say. Those who need proof (or even evidence) lack faith.

The problem is that there is no proof of anything supernatural or, to the nest of my knowledge, even evidence of anything supernatural (I am assuming that "god" is defined as outside of Nature.).

But as soon as you present proof of the supernatural, it becomes natural by definition. That's why to even consider proving or disproving a god is a waste of time. Unless, as you say, a proof needs the line 'then a miracle occurs'. Which would make miracles a natural occurrence. And therefore not miracles. And then my head starts to hurt :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as soon as you present proof of the supernatural, it becomes natural by definition.

In the past what was previously thought to be god has turned out to be Nature. It didn't become Nature; it was Nature all along.

That's why to even consider proving or disproving a god is a waste of time. Unless, as you say, a proof needs the line 'then a miracle occurs'. Which would make miracles a natural occurrence. And therefore not miracles. And then my head starts to hurt :P

I gave up on "proofs" of god when I discovered they were all exercises in semantics. The "proofs" are circuitous in that whatever assumption you start with is the result you end up with. The problem is that we have never developed a lexicon for this purpose, so we can't even talk about it. Language can't do the job.

Also, many of the questions that come up in these discussions are phrased badly. The result is gibberish. Before you can get the right answer, you have to ask the right question.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I fully respect someone for having the conviction in their life to follow something. Even if it is not what I believe, I understand WHY they made the choice they did. I see the beauty in the world view that they have chosen to abide by, and I understand why it gives them purpose and joy and wonder. Therefore, no matter how "wrong" I believe it to be, I respect them for it. But because of my Faith, I still believe that I have chosen correctly. I believe that if someone were to lay out all that I believe Christianity teaches, the wonder of Jesus' sacrifice, the expression of love we therefore show in loving God and loving our neighbours, in meeting up with believers who have made the same choice, in accepting that we have sinned but because of God's mercy we have eternal life.

Whereas this explanation to me seems to provide arguments why you should doubt what you believe. Quick disclaimer, these are my intepretations only, I am phrasing my statements this way just for my ease, I am not putting words in your mouth. When you say you understand why people made the choice they did, you accept that people believe things to be true essentially because they want to, it provides purpose and joy and wonder. But you also say that many of these people are incorrect, thus people believe in false things just because they want to, a lot of them. I don't know how one can objectively make a case without empirical evidence to show that your belief is correct and the others are not, as you say it largely comes down to faith with is wholly subjective. Thus, through LG's eyes again, you've given yourself a very good reason not to put too much fai-, errrr, credence in what you believe to be true and especially whatever process you have taken to determine the truth of it.

To be fair, I don't believe that your religious belief was necessarily a matter of choice; it's obviously changeable, but I can't just will myself or choose to believe in God and Jesus or in creationism or astrology or whatever, I don't know to what extent belief is really voluntarily. It does seem like it has to be tough to evangelize however, I don't think I know how to do that without empirical evidence/logic/objective reasoning, especially since without those I don't see how I could believe it to be true myself.

But I digress, this is my personal faith. I cannot turn away from it, for to me it is as true as this laptop I'm typing on.

I've heard this type of sentiment before, but I don't understand it. If your laptop is not really there, then the likely answer to that should pretty much shatter your reality, you are either severely hallucinating or we're living in the Matrix or something. Regardless of what it is, it pulls the rug out from your religious beliefs also as that relies on this world not just being a dream or simulation, as the Bible would just be a part of that illusion also. If Vishnu comes down and through whatever means convinces you that you are incorrect about the role of Jesus in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it would have nearly as large an impact on everything else you think is true in comparison.

Hope this helps :)

It does, and despite my response above I'm still thinking about what you've said and how that seems to me to be such a different 'justification' for believing things to be true, I haven't really thought through all the ramifications if was to accept such justifications. Thanks as always for the reply! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of amateurish discoveries, didn't someone also find Jesus' bones?

Yeah his foot was still inside his sandal, and a skidmark on his dress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of amateurish discoveries, didn't someone also find Jesus' bones?

They found a tommb with the name of jesus carved on it. It was empty. That doesn't mean that it was the tomb of christ. Many people named jesus. Including one in the same time period as christ. He also claimed to be the son of god. It was do to this jesus that the timple was destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They found a tommb with the name of jesus carved on it. It was empty. That doesn't mean that it was the tomb of christ. Many people named jesus. Including one in the same time period as christ. He also claimed to be the son of god. It was do to this jesus that the timple was destroyed.

Empty except for remains.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/arts/television/03stan.html?_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The show on tv said no remains. Which proves my other point. That there were more than one person named jesus, as there is today. Mexicans name children jesus in honor of christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.