to believe in God.
2007-09-08 22:40:31 · 15 answers · asked by Jeannie A 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
true there ARE documents to back up history, and there are also documents to back up the Bible =D
2007-09-08 22:47:49 · update #1
we didnt see **** from history or from the bible happen...
2007-09-08 22:48:54 · update #2
its ironic how those who dont believe in God uses His name with a capital G...i can see u doing that for Jesus, seeing as that is a name but GOD??? hmmm
2007-09-08 22:50:09 · update #3
History books, for the most part, are backed up by actual records :)
2007-09-08 22:45:53 · answer #1 · answered by /\v/\TARD 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Indeed there are documents and archeological evidence to back up parts of the bible as history, though often quite inaccurate or corrupted. That however, still does not prove the existence of God. All it does is prove that the people who were writing the stories of the bible knew a bit about the world they lived in, allowing them to weave their beliefs in with what they saw and experienced.
2007-09-09 06:01:05 · answer #2 · answered by dead_elves 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because there is no valid argument or evidence for the existence of any gods.
Theists would argue that history requires faith, and that is true, but it's not faith with no foundation at all. It's true to say that in practice we do not normally reserve judgment on the existence of figures such as Julius Caesar and Plato, but I would say that the reason we do not do so is this: If, in the light of the available evidence, the *falsity* of a proposition would be much more improbable than its truth, then we're justified in making the provisional assumption that it's true. In the example of Julius Caesar, we probably have many documents from many different sources which refer to him, we have statues and inscriptions and coins and relics all dating from the correct time, and so on... I think it would be true to say that it would be much *more* remarkable for all that to exist if Julius Caesar never existed than if he *did* exist. We are using reason when we make that judgment.
Compare that with believing on faith that a man called Jesus existed, that he was the son of a god, that he died for 3 days and then came back to life, that he flew up to heaven and still exists today. Is believing that this *didn't* happen more improbable than believing that it *did*? I don't think so. I think the claim that all this did happen is so much more incredible that it would require vastly more evidence than a story in an old book to make any rational person believe it.
2007-09-09 05:45:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think believing history books and believing God are different thinks And for example we have the first written Quran in the time of Prophet (puh) but your approach is true, cause if we evaluate the religion according to what it offers us while managing our lives( that judgement or eavluation can be done by evaluating the religious texts) it will be the most trustworthy and correct method before we believe All the best :)
2007-09-09 06:19:50 · answer #4 · answered by drygiray 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought you were going to ask "but so hard to believe the Bible to be historically true and accurate"?. Now that IS a question answered simply by stating the Bible demands us to confront moral responsibility to an higher Authority whereas history books don't make such a demand.
As for me I think it takes far greater faith to NOT believe in God than to believe.
2007-09-09 05:48:39 · answer #5 · answered by pwwatson8888 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well.. my retarded friend. the answer is that "god"(as you see it) does things that are not possible like making things disappear, reviving the long dead, making women from ribs and all other kinds of magic. Thats why belief doesn't come as easy as established history. there is allot more than only documents to back up most history, such as books buildings and bones. all of which have natural causes that have nothing to do with magic.
2007-09-09 05:49:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
History books usually have collated evidence from various corroborating sources, the Bible has only itself and it is self-referencing, this can only lead any seriously thinking person to suppose that it is purely a work of fiction.
2007-09-09 05:55:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
more than half of history is incorrect or made up.. Look how many years it took to say Pluto wasn't a planet ? Will they change all the history books. ?
2007-09-09 06:15:32 · answer #8 · answered by hiba 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
History has supposedly been confirmed.
God can only be confirmed through faith. And faith has to be based on His record in the Bible.
2007-09-09 05:52:31 · answer #9 · answered by pugjw9896 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the history books rarely tell us that people were resurrected, or walked on water, or fed a crowd of thousands with a can of tuna and a loaf of WonderBread.
2007-09-09 05:46:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋