Christians, would you want a murder investigater to rely on faith instead of evidence to solve a murder case?

Question

If murder investigators did that, there would be a lot more innocent people in prison

How would you like it he said, "I dont know who killed her so it had to be her husband. We dont need evidence"

That's just like saying, "I dont know who made the universe so it had to be the Christians God, We dont need evidence".

Answer 1

Another false dichotomy.

Faith has nothing to do with the concept that God created everything. The evidence is, that it is created, and we can see, touch, feel and taste it.

(Do any of you actually know what a false dichotomy is?)

Answer 2

Of course,then there are all the people who are unjustly incarcerated and even put on death row because of all the evidence that pointed to their guilt,only later,and at times,too late,to be found out that those people weren't guilty at all.
The same goes for the origin of life. Despite all the supposed evidence for evolution, the truth is the evolution theory is a philosophy made up of conjectures,speculations,assumptions,suppositions,and presuppositions that can be proven wrong at any time during scientific studies and scientific discoveries. Science is a fickle field that changes on a constant basis.
I am able to take what evidence there seems to be for evolution and see that it can be attributed to something God did rather than an evolutionary process. In other words, any scientific evidence attributed to science can also be attributed to God. It's as simple as that.
We are all on a quest to find the truth. We just have to keep our eyes and minds open to it,especially when it is staring us right in the face. But then there's always the dilemma of defining what is truth. There will always be opposition to either side,no matter how much we debate it.

Answer 3

I think that with faith, the investigator can solve the murder with evidence. That is, God will supply the evidence needed. Of course the investigator would have to search for evidence and do his job. Faith will supply the evidence

Answer 4

God knows who the murderer is. And can direct a person to the correct evidence and that isn't circumstantial. God can give visions of where the murder is also.

I asked God for the root of terrorism in prayer. God gave me a vision of a smiling Muslim with a big black turban on his head. Then I didn't know what that meant. But now I have seen pictures of Islamic leaders on billboards with big black turbans on their head. And in Islam that the ones who can wear a black turban have to be direct descendants of Mohammad.

The Sics with the big black turbans aren't the root of terrorism though. Not everyone with a big black turban is at the root of the terrorism.

There needs to be tangible evidence to back up any accusation. God can provide that tangible evidence.

Answer 5

After reading your questions, I've been wondering something for awhile. If you despise Christians and Christianity so much, why do you hang around the RELIGION and Spirituality section? Wouldn't it make more sense to go somewhere that you're not constantly being irritated by those of us who are Christians?

Gotta wonder if there's not a latent streak of the masochistic in your nature.

P.S. Really crummy analogy here, friend. You can do better.

Answer 6

Well, there is more evidence for the resurrection of Christ, than there is evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.

As far as manuscript evidence goes, The New Testament alone has the greatest volume, earliest date (vis-a-vis its autographs), and the most researched manuscripts than any other text of antiquity.

For example, no one really disputes Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph). No one really disputes Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed). Or Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed). No one disputes Herodotus' History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed). No one really disputes Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed). No one really disputes Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years elapsed.) Homer's Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts. And we have a fragment of John's Gospel (Chapter 18) that was written within a generation of Christ's resurrection.

As to "investigators" who actually investigate, rather than take things by faith, here's a couple of examples:

Josh McDowell, was a professor, who set out to debunk Christianity. After doing 700 hours of research, he concluded that the evidence demanded a verdict. He became a Christian, and then penned a book with the title, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Josh runs a ministry whose sole existence is attesting to the validity of the Bible and its contents.

Simon Greenleaf was a lawyer, and a founder of the Harvard Law School. He set out to evaluate the biblical accounts hoping to refute their claims. After exhaustive research, he determined that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ was overwhelming, and would stand scrutiny in a court of law. Because he used the Bible as eyewitness accounts, he obviously attested to their validity.

Answer 7

In my religeon, evidence is very important ... for example ... if you are cought having sex and your not married ... a judge needs four witnesses to convict you. to truly rely on God, you have to do two things: 1) rely on faith as if there is no evidence ... 2) rely on the evidence as if there is no reliance on faith ... you should do both ... one alone, and the formula isn't balanced.

Answer 8

Answer: No. Your argument is apples and oranges.

In our legal system, there is "faith" that you are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. "I don't know who killed her, but the husband is presumed " faith" innocent unless otherwise proved."

Also, there is evidence that God exists. In fact, its overwhelming. For example, have you ever seen an autopsy? It was difficult for me not to believe after I saw the actual organs inside the body and fascinating how these could function together with completely separate functions. How could this have evolved entirely from plankton? How could this human machine of organs be possible without a design or creator?

Secondly, Blaise Pascal was a great mathematician. He waged others that there was a God and that if you believed, you would have the probability of an eternity of happiness. If you waged against God, then there was a probability that you would have an unpleasant afterlife. So given the two options, the Wager for God is a better decision because it is the more logical choice. There is no proof about the Bible, but if you choose for God, then one would believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Also, I think a lot of people are in denial. All you have to do is REALLY look around at the complexity and design of life and how can a person not believe in a creator?

Can you prove God does Not exist? I certainly cannot.

I choose God......

Answer 9

really bad comparison. Murder investigations are needed to punish the guilty party. God is needed for everybody

Answer 10

that's because when you are investigating a murder, there can be hard evidence of the crime, which must mean there are hard facts.

God is different, that's why it requires faith.

If you want hard evidence of God, or the "process of evolution" just go touch something. It's called the universe or reality, or some people just call it life.

Answer 11

Sometimes the evidence is circumstantial at best and leads to the wrong conclusion.

May God Bless you.