Do christians really think that "faith" satisfies the burden of proof?

Question

This particularly seems to be the case with the evolution debate.

Atheists provide mountains of evidence, and the fundamentalists just go, "but I have my faith"............which includes using bible references, as belief in the bible can only be based on faith.

Why don't they realise that the burden of proof as to whether or not god exists really lies with them, and that faith does not satisfy the burden of proof?

Answer 1

Why did the atheists cry for a week when the creation museum announced its opening. Most called them liars before going to the museum. We provide proof but you deny it before checking the evidence. You don't want to believe it, then don't.

Answer 2

This is silly. Life does not take place in a courtroom. If you want to get into a reason-based debate, who decided that there was a burden of proof in the first place? Fundamentalists don't feel a need to logically prove anything to you. You might as well leave that idealistic notion behind.

And stop lumping all Christians in with Fundamentalists - many of us don't oppose the theory of evolution.

Answer 3

certainly not. many former evolutionists and atheists have come to salvation or accept that God exists when they set out to prove the God doesnt exist... and the Bible wrong.
.

Dr. Simon Greenleaf, a professor of law at Harvard in 1842, who was an atheist; he wrote a widely-used book on how to present evidence that cannot be refuted in a court of law. One day, a Christian student challenged him to apply the rules of evidence that he taught to the information that they (the students) had that Jesus rose from the dead. After his attempt, he wrote, "Evidence that such as we have that supports the fact that Jesus rose from the dead has never failed in a court of law." Dr. Greenleaf became an enthusiastic follower of Christ.

Two other atheists were fed up with Christianity and were going to get rid of it by proving two different points: Benjamin Gilbert West set out to prove that "Christ did not rise from the dead." His friend Lloyd Littleton set out to prove that "Saul of Tarsus never converted to Christianity." Two years later they met and discovered that each had failed to prove their original theses but rather confirmed them - and each had become a Christian.

Dr. Frank Morrison, was a British journalist and an atheist, who was determined to rid the world of what he called "the scourge of Christianity" once and for all. After aggressive research, he wrote a book called Who Moved the Stone? - The book that refused to be written; this was later published by Zondervan. Dr. Morrison himself became an enthusiastic follower of Christ

also C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell,
Lee Strobel In 1981, the Chicago Tribune legal affairs editor jettisoned his adamant atheism and converted to Christianity.
.

the blog of a former atheist
et-tu.blogspot (dot) com/

there can be more but this was a quick online search

links below.

Answer 4

they have the burden of information in the event that they're making the declare to me and anticipate me to settle for it. in the event that they might't supply credible, verifiable data then i'm existence like in rejecting it. the burden of information in claims is often on those making the advantageous declare to offer data. in the event that they do no longer pass approximately claiming to me god exists, their faith is the way, and that i could stick to it then there's no subject. they could be certain and stick to for themselves. i used to be a theist as i became suggested in a theistic enjoyed ones. I universal what i became advised till I reached a undeniable age and then honestly tried to hunt for god or a foundation for concept in Christianity yet got here up empty. apparently god isn't doing this style of great job if it exists of talking that, or which faith is genuine, or what its nature and desires are pondering all the religions and diverse and contradictory strategies that abound.

Answer 5

Do these kind of questions keep you up at night? I guess mountains of evidence that prove the bible is correct from every historical point of view means nothing to you. So if the historical points are correct, then why wouldn't the whole bible be correct? Do worry, I use to fight it too. Then that "faith" you talk about was graciously afforded me.

Answer 6

For the individual it does. QED


What gets my goat are the ones who claim that THEIR faith satisfies the burden of proof for ME.


May their god go. With them.

Answer 7

Why wouldn't faith satisfy the burden? If it "lies with them" as you said then that is proof that faith DOES provide proof. It may not be satisfactory for you, but it is for them and that's all that matters.

Answer 8

To those who rely on proof, no proof is ever enough. They will always try to find a way to explain it away

Answer 9

Read "The Case for Faith". There's an interview with a PhD that provides a great deal of proven scientific evidence that evolution is a sham.

Answer 10

I do not have to prove my faith, I do not have to prove the God I believe in. . .I have scripture that confirms that, but I know there is no need in quoting it to you.

What is it about my faith that bothers you?

I believe in God through faith. . .and because of that I also believe that I have felt my God in my life. . .which is my own personal proof for me, it is not something I have to try to prove to anyone else. . .because I can not. . .it is mine, it is personal.