It has been stated, that if something can't be proven scientifically, than it must be false. Such a statement is short sighted. Utilizing scientific proof, one could not prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Martin Luther King Jr. was a civil rights leader. Scientific proof in this context renders it useless. To tackle the notion that Martin Luther King Jr. was civil rights leader, we must turn to Legal-Historical proof.
Legal-Historical proof encompasses oral/written testimony and physical evidence. Utilizing Legal-Historical proof, I could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I had lunch at Burger King last week. To verify my claim, you and I could make contact with employees at the restaurant. More even, I could introduce you to friends of mine that may have been with me to speak on my behalf. And lastly, I could present a receipt.
With all in mind, you could make the conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) that I did in fact have lunch at Burger King last week, never having "physically" seen me. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Legal-Historical proof can be applied to other matters of fact in question: the Resurrection of Christ. People have diverse opinions on the topic, and I welcome them. Let's, however, cling to what we do know, and dismiss what we "think" we know. In other words, let's be honest and let the evidence speak for itself.
The hyper link below has been posted for those who have unbias views, and a will to read and learn. The article is (by no stretch of the imagination) extremely indepth; a bibliography is provided for further research even. If you wish to refute the resurrection, before doing so, read the article in its entirety. Be fair and intelligent. The author of the article is William Lane Craig, and he is considered to be a subject matter expert in his field(s). I have also posted his bibliography if you wish to learn more about his credentials prior to reading his article. Thank you. And may we all find the truth.
You obviously don't have true faith. If you have true faith, no amount of evidence, logic or science should sway you from your faith or what you believe in.
If you're trying to prove your faith or disprove the science or history that clashes with your faith, then you don't have faith because this inmplies you have doubts about your faith, you care what other people feel about your faith and you feel you must form a logical or scientific background for your faith.
I believe in ghosts. All science and logic states it doesn't exist. I acknowledge it. But I believe in ghosts anyway. I don't use logic or science to try and prove it. That's faith....
He didn't post this for selfish reasons, he posted it for public consideration and examination so that you all can arrive at your own conclusion based on the information provided. What about that don't you understand?
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
Re: Scientific and Legal-Historical Proof
This is the most ignorant thing I've ever read. Do you even know what proven scientifically mean?
I looked up the phrase “Legal-Historical proof” and only Christians use it. There is no such thing in the real world. Scientists use everything at their disposal, they don’t separate information and call it “Legal-Historical proof”.
This proves nothing.
Why do Christians go around the scientific community and try to make scientific claims? The reason is, if they were to write a scientific paper and submit it to a scientific journal, their ideas would be laughed at.
He shouldn't feel the need to post any examinations to make people draw conclusions. He shouldn't feel the need to disprove the notion that without scientific evidence, Jesus didn't exist.
He "KNOWS" already.
And Legal-Historical Proof is bull. I could write a book stating that a man named Clark Kent was the President of the United States and he ruled for over sixty years. If the book were to survive to the 300th Century could it taken as "evidence"?
No. It's bias.
Written/spoken testimony is bias through and through. People say and see different things about what they see. This forum is proof enough....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scientific and Legal-Historical Proof
Using your own rationale I could say that you shouldn't feel the need to post any response/comments finding fault with what someone else is doing. He perhaps feels about as strongly (perhaps more so) as you felt to post a response. You know already how you feel about his examinations and yet you wasted time responding did you not? All is fair in love and war.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scientific and Legal-Historical Proof
There's a difference. I'm using logic. He's using "faith". As a logical being, I feel the need to prove or make sense of things. As a faithful person, he shouldn't feel the need to prove or disprove or make any conjectures for his faith. Which he is. He's saying "let's ignore science and let's focus on this dusty 1000 year tome written by some Christian to prove that Christ was truely the Son of God."
He's not being an alturistic Christian. He has his own agenda to "prove" Christianity through "Legal-Historical" Proof. Keyword: PROOF.
He doesn't NEED proof NOR as a faithful person feel the need to post a logical perspective of proof to "prove" Christianity.
If he had true faith, he wouldn't feel the need to prove anything because he has faith no matter WHAT.....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scientific and Legal-Historical Proof
I need to figure out how to communicate this in braile because you obviously cannot see that what you are saying is self-contradictory. He is not doing it for himself, people do not make cases for themselves they make them for others to consider. So, no HE doesn't need proof, but his listeners may need proof (initially). Although in the end they will still have to make the decision to come to Christ without it.
Honey, you have this like completely naive view of the world.
People argue and make cases purely so other people will listen to their cases?
Nooooo. They're trying to prove something to others. That's what "making a case" or "making an arguement" is about.
And JesusisAlive. Don't be snotty. Jesus wouldn't approve.
You're really no different. If your intention was to convert others to Christianity, it should be about offering faith in a higher power to others. Not spending hours on an Internet Forum arguing creation & evolution, trying to prove Christianity through Bibical quotes, and making logical analysis over figurative statements.
I stand by what I said. I highly suggest you do what REAL Christians do and get out in the real world and join missionaries and volunteer Christian groups.
If you get to Heaven, and tell Jesus you spent most of your life arguing about Christianity on an KMC Forums, that wouldn't reflect well on you.....
This forum was created to engage in debate over the resurrection of Jesus Christ, more specifically, an indepth article written by William Lane Craig. Nothing of the sort was challenged and debated. My personal views have no bearing whatsoever in this debate. I simply made generalized statements regarding scientific and legal-historical proof. Scientific proof has a function, but not in regards to historical matters. In the case of both methods, evidence can be obtained and conclusions (beyond a reasonable doubt) can be reached. This have absolutely nothing to do with "blind-faith." From what I gathered from your responses, no forward progress has been made. Instead, this forum has been bombarded with proud, boastful, insufficient statements. I never even stated that I agreed with William Lane Craig. I left the matter open to objective criticism. I wanted a clean, intelligent debate. Read the article in its entirety, then voice yourself. Otherwise, you'll have no basis for an argument.
wow. this thread is stupid. The very fist sentence is nonsense.....and shows a complete lack of thought process or rationale.
who said that? It wasn't a scientist....or anybody with an I.Q. over 35. Here's why sweetie.
To validate something scientificly, you must first have a hypothesis to test. You must have a question before you can seek the answer to it. If something has already been verified scientificly, there is no point to further testing to establish it as truth....only further testing to expand the knowledge of the truth that has already been established. This leaves only the unknown to be hypothesized about......therefore only the unknown to seek scientific verification. If something has not been validated via scientific means and one believes anything that has not been validated via scientific means is false, there is no such thing as truth as nothing would have ever been tested in attempt for verification as truth as it is already false.
where did you get this statement from? Did that person have downsyndrome?
KMC Community Forums
Sep 10th, 2006 08:00 PM
Make sure it's a good heave coat. 
