Why do Christians use the Bible to prove the existence of God?

Question

This is a fallacious argument. Can someone out there provide me some evidence of the existence of God without using the Bible or other religious text?

Answer 1

Ontological argument (a.k.a. Anselm was an idiot)
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. Existence is, somehow, a property that makes something better.
3. I can't imagine something having a (weasel word) property of existence without that thing having that property.
4. Therefore, God must exist.

Cosmological argument
1. I didn't understand college physics.
2. Therefore, God must exist.

Pantheistic argument
1. I define this rock to be God.
2. This rock exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Teleological argument
1. I didn't understand college biology.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Anthropic argument
1. Cows taste good.
2. God must have made them for me to eat.
3. The universe isn't all that big.
4. Therefore, God exists.

Moral argument
1. Christians don't kill people, ever.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Transcendental argument
1. God exists.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Inductive argument
1. I like church music.
2. God probably exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Witness argument
1. My grilled cheese looks like the Virgin Mary.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Christological argument
1. Everything written by ancient people is true, even when ancient sources contradict each other. Also, epilepsy is caused by demons.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Majority argument
1. Lots of people believe in God.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Scotch School argument
1. God exists.

Proper Basis argument
1. This is a chair.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Jacobi's argument
1. I think God exists.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Rousseau's argument
1. Jacobi was an idiot.
2. I feel that God exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Answer 2

yep. Let's start with the Brain

The Encyclopædia Britannica states that man’s brain “is endowed with considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person’s lifetime.”21 It also has been stated that the human brain could take any load of learning and memory put on it now, and a billion times that! But why would evolution produce such an excess? “This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use,” admitted one scientist. He then asked: “How can this be reconciled with evolution’s most fundamental thesis: Natural selection proceeds in small steps, each of which must confer on its bearer a minimal, but nonetheless measurable, advantage?” He added that the human brain’s development “remains the most inexplicable aspect of evolution.”22 Since the evolutionary process would not produce and pass on such excessive never-to-be-used brain capacity, is it not more reasonable to conclude that man, with the capacity for endless learning, was designed to live forever?

18 Carl Sagan, amazed that the human brain could hold information that “would fill some twenty million volumes,” stated: “The brain is a very big place in a very small space.”23 And what happens in this small space defies human understanding. For example, imagine what must be going on in the brain of a pianist playing a difficult musical composition, with all fingers flying over the keys. What an astonishing sense of movement his brain must have, to order the fingers to strike the right keys at the right time with the right force to match the notes in his head! And if he hits a wrong note, the brain immediately lets him know about it! All this incredibly complex operation has been programmed into his brain by years of practice. But it is made possible only because musical capability was preprogrammed into the human brain from birth.

19 No animal brain ever conceived such things, much less is able to do them. Nor does any evolutionary theory provide an explanation. Is it not evident that man’s intellectual qualities mirror those of a Supreme Intellect?

The human capacity for altruism—unselfish giving—creates another problem for evolution. As one evolutionist noted: “Anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish.” And many humans are selfish, of course. But as he later acknowledged: “It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism.”24 Another scientist added: “Altruism is built into us.”25 Only in humans is it practiced with an awareness of the cost, or sacrifice, that may be involved

This is just one little thing. There is tons of information. Happy reading!

Answer 3

First of all, if the Bible didn't agree, you'd have to wonder why they used it, wouldn't you? But you are right that the Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible.

How about this:
1. The universe exists (self-evident).
2. It was not always here (confirmed by science).
3. Therefore, it either created itself from nothing or was created by something outside of itself.
4. It is not the case that the universe created itself from nothing (causality)
5. Therefore, the universe was created by something outside of itself. Label that something "God."

Now, if you want to know about that "God," that's when you can look at the Bible and see what has been revealed.

Answer 4

nicely, sure. The Bible should be utilized to coach God. yet this probable isn't the great device at the same time as chatting with someone who would not believe or accept as true with the Bible. assistance to coach the existence of God to a non-believer is by technology. technology proves God. Now, there's a lie pronounced as evolution floating round that asserts technology proves that there is not a God. it is inaccurate. there is plently of data that proves the exsistence of God.

Answer 5

You're gonna get a lot of "look at the creation around you." And "I feel him in my heart."

These are not valid arguments, no matter how much they want to believe. The fact is, the bible is so flawed that it is a better argument AGAINST the existence of God. (at least in the religious sense.)

The best argument for God is our need to explain where things come from. This still tells us nothing ABOUT God.

Answer 6

Don't ask me. I'm christian, and even I know that the bible isn't the "word of God" it's the word of men who followed him. I know very well that stories of Jesus could've easily been streatched (it was like, 30 years after death before any of the gospels were written) So you can't really depend on the bible, and you can't really 'prove' the existance. It's just about faith and blah blah blah I'm not going to lecture you. But I do agree with one thing, you can't really prove too much with the bible, you just have to go on faith.

Answer 7

Because there is no physical proof of God, so they turn to the only source they have - a book that says it is the word of God, as inspired by God, so therefore it proves that God exists....

I know.........its the same as believing in wizards, because the Harry Potter books say they exist....

Answer 8

What would be fallacious about using the Bible to prove something? Wouldn't it be non-scientific to rule out any source before considering it?

Answer 9

You are wrong, the Bible (and Coran and Torah...) is not used to prove anything, its, only a text which summarize the history of the Jews and Christians, and some laws to try to make people better...

Answer 10

They have to try and use the bible to "prove" the existence of god because every other component of reality disproves the existence of god.