Can you prove Christianity is true through reason alone?

[Matthew91]

Well my question is exactly what I said above. Me and a friend have had this discussion and he says that you don't need faith to see that Christianity is true, and that you can use reason alone. I said that you cant logically jump from Deism to Theism, and that faith must be involved, but he says that there can be a logical leap based on reason alone. he says the following:

"Certainly a 'jump' from deism to theism can be made. Deism doesn't answer the fact that truth, beauty, and good (which I say compose love) exist, but theism does. Why? Because deism doesn't allow God to contain virtue, but theism speaks of a God that does."

I pointed out that to an atheist; they can claim that truth beauty and good are relative and man made things that are not absolute.

So, what do you all have to say on this?

[derekohachey]

You should read "Reasons to Believe" by Scott Hahn. Scott takes the argument from atheism to deism to Christianity to Catholocism in one 227 page book. It's pretty good.

God Bless,
Derek

[Starwynd]

Can you prove logic and reason are true through reason alone?

The weaknesses of logic and reason is that they can be used to sup-port any deplorable behavior, such as racism and genocide and slavery.

And the other one is that different people will come to different conclusions of the same body of evidence using logic and reason.

[SumEns]

I believe the OP is correct. I believe that reason can bring you to the idea that 'a' god exists, but it is faith that tells you that that god is GOD. There is no argument out there that will demonstrably prove that God sent his only son, or that there exists a Heaven and a Hell. The point is, once you reach the conclusion that there is a god, only faith will inform you that it is the God.

[jkiernan56]

Originally Posted by SumEns

I believe the OP is correct. I believe that reason can bring you to the idea that 'a' god exists, but it is faith that tells you that that god is GOD. There is no argument out there that will demonstrably prove that God sent his only son, or that there exists a Heaven and a Hell. The point is, once you reach the conclusion that there is a god, only faith will inform you that it is the God.

In Jerusalem the holiest place was the Temple, and in the Temple the holiest spot was the Holy of Holies.

Reason is sufficient to show that God exists and it will get a person at least in the "outer chamber" (ie - through the door into the first room).

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made." Romans 1:19

WHO God is can only be known through revelation and God's initiative. Faith is necessary to enter into the Holy of Holies (the inner chamber).

[Cajetan]

To even attempt to prove that Christianity is true through "reason alone" would be an offense against faith.

While we can come to a knowledge of the existence of God and other like-truths about God -- God's omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc. -- without the aid of faith (that is, purely philosophically), when it comes to what God has revealed/communicated to us -- Divine Revelation -- faith is required. Relevatory truths are above reason, that is to say, the human mind and empirical data do not provide the tools with which one could reach these truths.

Just to add, the term "reason alone" is abused far too often in ordinary language. Reason alone properly refers to the a priori, which is not what most people actually mean when they say "reason alone." St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophical proofs for God's existence do not operate through "reason alone" or a priori reasoning (for instance, 1+1=2); rather they are a posteriori, resting ultimately on empirical data or our common experience of the world (as in, "we notice in the world that things are in motion, therefore..."). In sum, "reason alone" is not necessarily the same thing as "reason without the aid of faith."

[jeff61]

Originally Posted by Cajetan

To even attempt to prove that Christianity is true through "reason alone" would be an offense against faith.

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.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by 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.

Question since you did mention logical. Are there two logical leaps in the opening post?

1. The leap from deism to theism --logical or not logical. Theism is one of those general terms which can include a variety of religions or a simple belief in a transcendent being. My assumption is that logic or reason has already been used to reach the concept of deism. Can the same line of logic or reason continue on to theism?

2. The leap from either deism or theism to Christianity. With this leap, the goal is specifically Christianity.

Note: Apparently, deism is a given. Maybe theism is also a given.

Blessings,
grannymh

[cpayne]

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.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by cpayne

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"?
.

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

[Leela]

Originally Posted by grannymh

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

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

[warpspeedpetey]

Originally Posted by grannymh

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

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

[Sideline]

Originally Posted by jkiernan56

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made." Romans 1:19

Sorry to interject but this is such a funny quote.

Doest that passage really say that invisible qualities have always been seen?

Does that mean that the intangible has always been felt, that the inaudible has always been heard, and the odourless has always been smelled?

I know what the passage means, but you have to admit it could have been better stated.

About the OP, logic is a tool that leads from true premises to true conclusions. That's really all it does. So, in the case of your friend's argument, he would have to prove that: 1. "Truth, beauty, and good" is love 2. Love can been demonstrated to exist if, and only if, 3. God is loving.

My experience would suggest that no matter what you say, your friend will be convinced that he can prove all of those points.

[MindOverMatter]

Originally Posted by Starwynd

The weaknesses of logic and reason is that they can be used to sup-port any deplorable behavior, such as racism and genocide and slavery.

Reason is only as good as the ground on which it is based. There are also different kinds of reasoning, such as “survivalist principles” or the law of positive thinking. I for one think a good case for Christianity can be made in respect of our “existential dilemma”. But first we must understand that all systems of thought—metaphysical or otherwise—are based on foundational principles that are really just assumptions, and that includes the scientific principle. Why? This is because we assume a realist position in respect of things existing independently of mind. Because of this, one could reason that reasoning about anything at all in terms of truth is pointless, and that we should be more concerned with ideas that protect our well being for as long as possible and promote the most pleasurable lifestyle.

But in order to interact with the world meaningfully we must make an important assumption, and that is to approve the existence of things existing independently of mind. This in turn opens the door to and justifies other types of reasoning other then the search for the most pleasurable existence. On the basis of pleasure and experience, we can make reasonable judgments, such as, which is the best foundational assumptions that we can use in order to build an ordered society which promotes the greatest happiness and values? On recognizing that selfish behavior leads to suffering and death, one can reason that certain assumptions, beliefs and lifestyles are not the best foundations upon which one can build a fruitful society; and even though some behavior feels good, one must sacrifice those in order to develop a truly fulfilling state of unity and being.

For instance, if you reason that the world is ultimately without objective purpose, meaning, and universal moral law, and that the world is nothing but natural events, then that leaves people open to the negative justification of doing what ever they want with life in complete disregard to others and yourself. They can define people in anyway they want. They can hurt anybody they want, and control anybody they want; and not feel any guilt whatsoever, since all things are permissible and so ultimately they are going to cease to exist and get away with it. E.g. what does it mean to say that rape is wrong if the universe is not rooted in a real transcendent perfection? It means nothing. If you are just a fluctuation of energy, then the only laws and principles that objectively apply to you is the forces that compel you. Any distaste for how you go about getting that pleasure is just a meaningless opinion which has no objective relation to ultimate truths. Some people kill people and some don’t. Nature is simply nature.

But one cannot build a positive society on such a foundation, and one cannot expect people to knowingly accept moral fantasies that they know not to be true or have no logical foundation.

That’s why, if I'm going to bring children in to this world and build a society in which people can feel secure about their existential being, I must absolutely appose naturalism in principle, even if it might be true, for the simple fact that naturalism absolutely destroys the logical foundations that supports the human value system and thus our personal well-being. This line of reasoning leaves open to us only one option, and that is to say that there is a purpose, a meaning and a value at the root of reality. It is true that I haven’t demonstrated this logically, but it does follow reasonably in respect of promoting the greatest good for human society. That doesn't mean that one can forget reason and promote any old nonsense in its place; that’s not what I’m implying. One must have a reasonable faith absolutely. What I mean to say is that, according to my principle of the greatest good, since there is no “a-prior” reason to say that naturalism must be true, then there is no good reason to accept it by “faith” and therefore I must reject it and develop a system of thought that supports the premise of an ultimate purpose. Either that, or i must accept by faith the most reasonable revelation based Religion.

To Be Continued...............

[MindOverMatter]

This might shock you as an unreasonable basis for believing in God, but that’s because the atheist or even the theist hasn’t yet grasped the true irrationality of accepting an un-provable system of thought that ultimately and absolutely undermines are existential well-being. The point is, nobody in there right mind ought to think that there is no God or that there is no such thing as moral truths since the world looks contrived and are senses give us the impression that there really is such a thing as right and wrong. There is no a prior reasons for doubting that; and so, to doubt it, is to create the suspicion that one has ulterior motives that do not involve the greatest good for humanity even though such a person would have us believe so. Whether we can prove that there is a purpose or not is irrelevant. The only people who disbelief, with out an “a prior” reason for doing so, are either those who can't help but look negatively on their existential dilemma, or rather, they think that there is some kind of intellectual or personal glory or freedom that can be obtain by being naturalists, and they are willing to trade in Heaven for whatever they consider that glory to be. Any proof for God simply becomes a hurdle, rather then a possibility of having an intimate relationship with ones ultimate Author. The question of God is not an intellectual problem but a psychological one. It seems to me to be a question of ego.

In terms of the Greatest Good for the human individual and human civilization, as a Christian, I can positively and reasonably say that with out "a prior proofs" against the existence of God, there is no logical basis for not believing in God. From a pragmatic point of veiw it even seems immoral not to believe in God. Agnosticism is some what more reasonable; however, because an eternally fulfilling relationship with God is the best thing that could ever happen to a human being, it would seem an unreasonable waist to squander what little life we have on limited pleasures that lead nowhere. And so, a survivalist approach ought to lead one into a relationship with God.

For these reasons, In principle, I do not believe that Gods existence has to be proven because, so far as God has the most positive and fulfilling impact on the existential problem of humanity, a reasonable person would favor the possibility of Gods existence in the first place, instead of trying to tear it down all the time. It seems to me that this desire to tear it down is not an intellectual manifestation, but a negative psychological attack on what is perceived to be a threat to one’s own personal desire and the ability to control ones own reality. But in reality, no material good for any length of time out-weighs the possibility of having a personal relationship with the Heavenly Father. Plus; if everybody truly practiced Christianity, the world would more likely be a much healthier, loving and positive reality, so long as we rejected are selfish desires. There is every reason to think that humanity will simply wither away on the foundation of naturalism.

Given the points I have just made, I think the God of Christianity is the most reasonable God, since I value a God who would suffer and die on the cross for me. That seems to me to be what a good God would do and therefore is likely to be the one that created me. And a God that is love ensures that God would create human beings.