Can you prove Christianity is true through reason alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthew91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There seems to be something wrong with the question itself. I mean, the answer is so obviously no, there must be something else in the mind of the questioner.

Christianity is based on historical events, the action of God in history. How do you “prove” a historical event occurred “by reason alone”?

I’ll give you an example. I’m wearing a shirt right now. Can you tell me the color by reason alone? Let’s make it historical. A week ago, on Christmas, I went to two different places besides my home. Can you tell me what they were by reason alone?

I don’t mean there aren’t good arguments for the Gospel events having happened. I mean the events themselves are not such that they could be logically inferred or demonstrated.
 
Can you prove Christianity is true through reason alone?

Very doubtful, since Christianity is based on the gospels and the epistles, which are all part of revelation. The doctrine of the Trinity alone defies reason (as Isaac Newton pointed out) and remains a mystery in which we must believe or perish. Yet when all the revelation is once believed, looking backward from Genesis through Jesus, it is difficult to argue that Christianity is unreasonable. The appreciation of this view, however, is only possible by a guided tour through the OT and the NT, and that is an effort you will find few atheists or deists willing to make.
 
jeff61

*I have a problem with this. If the Christian God is real, and he loves us and wants us to be saved, then why do we have to go beyond reason and go on faith—something that can’t be proven.

Deism seem more logical.*

Would love to know why Deism seems more logical.
 
cpayne said:
There seems to be something wrong with the question itself. I mean, the answer is so obviously no, there must be something else in the mind of the questioner.

Christianity is based on historical events, the action of God in history. How do you “prove” a historical event occurred “by reason alone”?
.
Click to expand...
Dear cpayne,

Good question.

If I had to “prove” that a car exits, let alone what makes it move forward on its own, my horse Silver would be tied to the front hitching post.

What bothers me about the original question, can you prove Christianity is true… is the popular assumption that there is only one way to prove everything. Because of the predominance of science, and I thank God that science is doing what it can to make life better, we are conditioned to think that everything has to be evaluated along “scientific” lines. Then we fall into the trap of the mutually exclusive “or”.

Perhaps a book should be written titled “the science illusion”

Blessings for 2009
grannymh
 
grannymh said:
Dear cpayne,

Good question.

If I had to “prove” that a car exits, let alone what makes it move forward on its own, my horse Silver would be tied to the front hitching post.

What bothers me about the original question, can you prove Christianity is true… is the popular assumption that there is only one way to prove everything. Because of the predominance of science, and I thank God that science is doing what it can to make life better, we are conditioned to think that everything has to be evaluated along “scientific” lines. Then we fall into the trap of the mutually exclusive “or”.

Perhaps a book should be written titled “the science illusion”

Blessings for 2009
grannymh
Click to expand...
Hi Granny,

I’ve said before that I don’t think the issue is really about proof but rather, is there good reason to believe? Do we have the sort of evidence that we generally like to have in support of our beliefs?

It seems to me that the idea of faith is that we are somehow virtuous if we lower our usual standards for reason and evidence in support of our beliefs. I am not prescribing what I think people’s standards should be. I just wonder if we really need to make a special category of beliefs we call “religious” and apply a different standard for those beliefs than we would apply for every other belief we hold.

Generally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t think we have anything close to extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims made by Christianity. The evidence is ambiguous at best.

Regards,
Leela
 
grannymh said:
Dear cpayne,

Good question.

If I had to “prove” that a car exits, let alone what makes it move forward on its own, my horse Silver would be tied to the front hitching post.

What bothers me about the original question, can you prove Christianity is true… is the popular assumption that there is only one way to prove everything. Because of the predominance of science, and I thank God that science is doing what it can to make life better, we are conditioned to think that everything has to be evaluated along “scientific” lines. Then we fall into the trap of the mutually exclusive “or”.

Perhaps a book should be written titled “the science illusion”

Blessings for 2009
grannymh
Click to expand...
how bout my favorite proof? there were dozens of prophecies written over the course of millenium in the old testament by people who did not live in the same time or places, speak the same language, or share the same culture. yet those prophecies converged and were fulfilled in the person of Christ, no other religions can make that claim and if even a few of the prophecies converge, Christianity becomes all but a mathematical certainty. proof even a scientist could love:)

and the only counter argument is that some of the prophecies were vague or unfulfilled, but it only takes a few to run the odds way past any conceivable counter argument
 
Perhaps this is a good spot to put the following:

Faith enfolds
reason upholds
understanding beholds
 
warpspeedpetey said:
how bout my favorite proof? there were dozens of prophecies written over the course of millenium in the old testament by people who did not live in the same time or places, speak the same language, or share the same culture. yet those prophecies converged and were fulfilled in the person of Christ, no other religions can make that claim and if even a few of the prophecies converge, Christianity becomes all but a mathematical certainty. proof even a scientist could love:)

and the only counter argument is that some of the prophecies were vague or unfulfilled, but it only takes a few to run the odds way past any conceivable counter argument
Click to expand...
Dear warpspeedpetey,

Your proof is a keeper 👍

Blessings for 2009
grannymh
 
warpspeedpetey said:
how bout my favorite proof? there were dozens of prophecies written over the course of millenium in the old testament by people who did not live in the same time or places, speak the same language, or share the same culture. yet those prophecies converged and were fulfilled in the person of Christ, no other religions can make that claim and if even a few of the prophecies converge, Christianity becomes all but a mathematical certainty. proof even a scientist could love:)

and the only counter argument is that some of the prophecies were vague or unfulfilled, but it only takes a few to run the odds way past any conceivable counter argument
Click to expand...
I think the counter-argument is pretty simple. If the Bible is not just an ordinary book written by human beings, then I may be convinced if you can point to anything in the Bible that could not have been written by someone living in the 1st century.

And then there is the inconvenient fact that Jesus did not return as he supposedly said he would (see Matthew 24).

Best,
Leela
 
Leela said:
I think the counter-argument is pretty simple. If the Bible is not just an ordinary book written by human beings, then I may be convinced if you can point to anything in the Bible that could not have been written by someone living in the 1st century.

And then there is the inconvenient fact that Jesus did not return as he supposedly said he would (see Matthew 24).

Best,
Leela
Click to expand...
Here are a couple of verses from Matthew 24. Verse 29 begins
“Immediately after the tribulations of those days…” Verse 30 begins “And then the sign of the Son of Man… the Son of Man coming…” All one needs to do is to look at the news on TV and see that the tribulations of those days have continued. This is why Jesus says in verse 36 “But of that day and hour [referring to His coming] no one knows…”

As for someone writing the whole bible in the 1st century, even that secular historian, can’t remember his name right off, had difficulty writing his accounts. Imagine writing 73 books (listed in my bible) in a variety of writing styles. The difficulty would be compounded since various people in the New Testament quoted events, psalms, covenants, etc. which happened in the past. Jesus, Himself, quoted the prophets surrounded by people who were familiar with past writings and one of the psalms when He was on the cross. If the whole bible were written in the first century, where did the material which was quoted come from?

I added a note to a post in another thread that I do honor the positions of non-theists and non-religious including my own kids.
The point that I need to add is that everyone is free to accept or reject the bible in any way. The only thing that is being said here is that the bible was written over a period of time and in different styles and languages and regarding different geographical locations.
Interesting – isn’t it?

Blessings for the future,
grannymh
 
you can absolutely prove christianity is true through reason alone. this is what our faith is all about, faith and reason together. but because we all suffer from original sin, our intellects are darkened and it’s only through difficulty that we can come to the truth.

there are people who believe that we didn’t land on the moon or the attacks of 9-11 were staged by the u.s. government despite the evidence. it therefore shouldn’t surpise us that there are so many unbelievers. most presume that christianity is false before looking at the evidence supporting it.
 
grannymh said:
Here are a couple of verses from Matthew 24. Verse 29 begins
“Immediately after the tribulations of those days…” Verse 30 begins “And then the sign of the Son of Man… the Son of Man coming…” All one needs to do is to look at the news on TV and see that the tribulations of those days have continued. This is why Jesus says in verse 36 “But of that day and hour [referring to His coming] no one knows…”

As for someone writing the whole bible in the 1st century, even that secular historian, can’t remember his name right off, had difficulty writing his accounts. Imagine writing 73 books (listed in my bible) in a variety of writing styles. The difficulty would be compounded since various people in the New Testament quoted events, psalms, covenants, etc. which happened in the past. Jesus, Himself, quoted the prophets surrounded by people who were familiar with past writings and one of the psalms when He was on the cross. If the whole bible were written in the first century, where did the material which was quoted come from?

I added a note to a post in another thread that I do honor the positions of non-theists and non-religious including my own kids.
The point that I need to add is that everyone is free to accept or reject the bible in any way. The only thing that is being said here is that the bible was written over a period of time and in different styles and languages and regarding different geographical locations.
Interesting – isn’t it?

Blessings for the future,
grannymh
Click to expand...
id say that a written history of the old testament as kept by the Jews over the millennium would be sufficient proof, mention by historians previous to the first century, and archelological remains of Jewish kingdoms accounted in the torah.

so no, its not possible that the OT was written in the first century. the NT was but we have always claimed that. remember the calender we use, starts with the birth of Christ.

no serious scholar would suggest that the torah was written during the first century. thats just plain ridiculous in the face of the evidence.

further, Christ has yet to return, the keyword is yet. in scripture, it says we wont know the time. keep an eye out you never know when.

however there are dozens of prophecies. it takes very few being fulfilled to make Christianity all but a mathematical certainty.
 
As a previous poster already said, reason is a tool.

Reason always operates from some source. Without the source, reason is useless.

If the source is all Divine Revelation (or possibly even Scripture alone) then a person with a perfect human reason could apply that reason to the Revelation and end up with the whole of the Catholic Faith (developed beyond even now, to its fullness; that he would understand God as God understands him).

If the source is nature, then the human intellect, even if it were rendered perfect in its own kind, would still be limited, and could not derive much beyond that God exists and loves us, and some other important properties thereof, as well as many things about nature itself, as God’s creation.

This at least is my opinion on the matter.
 
brigid12 said:
I don’t believe it can be done in a few sentences on the internet, but St. Thomas Aquinas did this in his Summa. It can be accessed here newadvent.org/summa/index.html
Click to expand...
In the Summa Theologica II-II.2.3, Thomas asks the question, “Is it necessary for salvation to believe in anything above the natural reason?” His answer is yes. This seems to mean that his answer to the title question of the thread would be no.
 
faith is belief in the absence of proof…
just from knowing that, i think that trying to apply logic or reason to any faith-based belief system dilutes it, and to some degree, makes it hypocritical.
 
iamme said:
faith is belief in the absence of proof…
just from knowing that, i think that trying to apply logic or reason to any faith-based belief system dilutes it, and to some degree, makes it hypocritical.
Click to expand...
But what can we be said to have proof of, and what do you mean by proof? I think the issue is not about proof but rather, “do we have good reason to believe?”

If we have good reason to believe, then faith is not required. If we do not have good reason to believe, then why would it be good to believe?

Best,
Leela
 
I believe some psychologists and psychiatrists will admit (they will never say it in public) that a common factor in most, if not all, psychological illnesses are an inability or blockage to a realization of meaningful personal sinfulness.

The unique pre-requisite held by Christianity for entering heaven is surely the ULTIMATE of this new intellectual realization for what
a healthy mind is. That to me is intellectual proof that Christianity is the ultimate faith. In direct contrast to all other faiths, “It is worthy of all acceptance”.
 
Leela said:
But what can we be said to have proof of, and what do you mean by proof? I think the issue is not about proof but rather, “do we have good reason to believe?”

If we have good reason to believe, then faith is not required. If we do not have good reason to believe, then why would it be good to believe?

Best,
Leela
Click to expand...
i get ya, but think of it like this…
if i stop believing in gravity, am i gonna fly off into space? no, gravity is there whether i believe in it or not.
if i stop believing in god, is it going to have any effect other than what i choose attribute to my lack of belief in? you wont know until you try, i guess, but i havent heard of people flying into space because they stopped believing.

and there are many reasons for believing;
needing to feel as tho theres a purpose to our existence (i think thats the big one)
needing to feel like youre not alone (also a big one)
really, i guess all the reasons are significant, but theyre all based on a need, which isnt a bad thing at all. our sciences were all discovered on a need for understanding, they have just been proven, and are no more a belief than the belief that im alive, theyre fact…

i dont think you need a GOOD reason to believe, you just need a reason.
if its a good one, all the better…
 
iamme said:
i get ya, but think of it like this…
if i stop believing in gravity, am i gonna fly off into space? no, gravity is there whether i believe in it or not.
if i stop believing in god, is it going to have any effect other than what i choose attribute to my lack of belief in? you wont know until you try, i guess, but i havent heard of people flying into space because they stopped believing.

and there are many reasons for believing;
needing to feel as tho theres a purpose to our existence (i think thats the big one)
needing to feel like youre not alone (also a big one)
really, i guess all the reasons are significant, but theyre all based on a need, which isnt a bad thing at all. our sciences were all discovered on a need for understanding, they have just been proven, and are no more a belief than the belief that im alive, theyre fact…

i dont think you need a GOOD reason to believe, you just need a reason.
if its a good one, all the better…
Click to expand...
you dont have faith because you a have “a reason to believe” faith is a theological virtue of trusting in G-d in believing in His plan and the rightness of Him

not in his existence

though some might wish to ignore the untold mountains of evidence for the existence of G-d, like the existence of anything.

they misunderstand what ‘faith’ means to a Christian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top