ANSWERS: 27
  • When it became convenient.
  • Books aren't proof they are mere records of what we believe to worth documenting for the sake of future reference. Fatcs are what we all want! Osara
  • Star Wars is a book, as well. Now don't tell me you doubt the power of the dark side?!
  • Books themselves aren't proof of anything, but, if they are primary documents, they provide evidence of people, places, and events.
  • At the same time many Atheist wanted "Theory" to become proof.
  • They are not proof, they are written by man, an they make mistakes and change things, it is an account of history as they saw it. That have been translated many times incorrectly.
  • Are you calling the faith or the language here?
  • Books , in and of themselves are not proof, but their content can contain documentation of acceptable evidence. The bible, does not fit that criteria. It's content coincides with some historical people and places, but most, specifically metaphysical content, is purely believed on faith. At best it's historical fiction and at worst it is manipulative nonsense complied for the propagation of a blatant lie.
  • If they're divinely inspired, then they can be proof.
  • Proof of what?
  • 90 proof?
  • The book became proof when the "religious leaders" took bits and pieces of ancient text, compiled them in a manner that inspired fear and then went forth to kill the ones who would not accept that as their faith.
  • Faith needs no proof i do not practice organized religion but i do believe in god and what not proof is only needed when the matter is argued and no one should be trying to push their faith on anyone else. god gave men free will and they have the choice in faith plus who is to say who is right the indians believe that their ancestors were gods and greeks believed in hundreds of gods i would never say they were wrong.
  • Let me give you a different perspective.First there was learning by rote and passing down information to the next generation.Vedas have been learnt by rote and then jotted down on parchment, later they were inscribed on tablets, now they are on the net.The methodology differs of knowledge gathering from age to age.When archeologist dig up the past from Mohenjadaro or Egypt they came across lots of material in various forms and it is our job to decipher that and arrive at a conclusion.Books were in vogue at a later point in time so depending on the authentication method we can go by the book if need be.Though I am not a Christian but we Hindus also have books that we swear by,so this was in connection to that!Thanks.
  • From an archeological standpoint many tales in the bible where verified by evidence uncovered.
  • They got tired of using crude sharp objects to crave images on walls and gossiping tales to generations. So China was the 1st country to produce paper and the books came.
  • You mean the way that the books you and others read are read and then you believe and you say, "I have proof, I read it in a book."
  • Non Christians, when did books become proof? Take away every book in existence, don't allow any more to be printed, and put them in a place where no one can get at them. Wait two years then ask this question again. How many people would know what proof of anything was? Without a book to reference, in two years time, would you know what proof or truth was? Newspapers and the Internet don't count because they too, get their information from books. Just as you get your information, guidance, and proof from books, Christians get their spiritual information, guidance, and proof from the Bible. However, the big difference between secular books and the Bible is that even if the Bible was confiscated, Christians could still communicate with it's Author.
  • Ever since the first person wrote a book.
  • Well, as it has been said here over and over, books such as the bible have no proof. The Christian belief is that the bible was written by men but totally inspired by the Holy Spirit. In addition, the Christian religion has so much to do with faith. Also, there's much floating around that if you are a Christian, you don't believe in science which is just not true. Since, ab is not a Christian site, all opinoins, data, etc. are not respresented here.
  • When everything that was written In the Holy Bible was true... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4hbDWkwVWI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C33Oh_mCPXw We are In (Revelations) at this time... http://www.biblicist.org/prophecy/10AftertheMillennium.htm It's plain and simple, all you have to do Is read the Holy Bible for about 20 minutes a day, that's all It takes to learn something new =)
  • When did "recent scientific studies suggest..." become proof? "4 out of 5 experts agree ..." sounds to me more like a way of selling toothpaste. And "67% of respondents on our latest Time-Warner/AOL poll said ..." is just excrement. And yet the bulk of what most people consider to be "the truth" and "proven scientific facts" are just popular misconceptions that are accepted simply because they're currently in vogue. Today beliefs and worldviews aren't a product of deep rational investigation and contemplation (I doubt they ever were) but neither are they today a product of upbringing and heritage: today for the mass of the supposedly enlightened they're nothing but a fashion statement. "Oh, look at me - I'm so chic! I support Gay rights!" even when they have no idea what specific rights they’re actually supporting. The fact is that the vast majority of people not engaged in primary research on anything, and the remainder only conducting primary research in their own narrow fields of expertise, everyone must take most if not all of what they believe to be true of matters outside their own experience on the basis of ... (a drum roll please) AUTHORITY! The only question then becomes which authority or authorities you find credible and reliable, and which do you not. Sadly, little attention is paid to actual authorities - at least in an un-mediated fashion. Like the heathens of old, we prefer to deal with our gods and lords through middle-men. Think not? Then why are you asking questions like this on AB instead of picking up the phone to talk to a sociologist, an apologist, a psychologist, a theologian, or an anthropologist at your nearest university? Why not head to the library or even search the web: I know there are dozens of books, a few hundred articles, and God only knows how many webpages that would give you better and clearer information, straight from the horse's mouth, in some cases. But people are more comfortable among those of their own stature. It's the norm for people to follow - not the leader - but their herd. But be that as it may ... ASSUMING you're talking about the Bible, the Bible is the authority on itself. It is the appropriate reference when discussing or debating what the Bible does in fact say, teach, and mean. As the "inspired and revealed source" of Christianity and (minus the NT) Judaism, the Bible has the final say on what Christianity and Judaism should be and teach, how Christians and Jews should live, and what they should believe. If any of them don't like that and chafe under its yoke, they are free to leave and find another religion with another revelation more to their tastes and sensibilities. In questions of history, including the historical claims of these religions, the Biblical documents are primary sources that can be used, studied, and examined as any other ancient documents, and as such, provide evidence for and a window into the ancient past in the same way that Caesar’s Gallic Wars, Herodotus’ Histories, Sophocles’ Theban Cycle, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead do. In the matter of apologetics, to apologists of the presuppositionalist school, all worldviews, paradigms, philosophies, codes of ethics, political systems, and religions are based on unprovable presuppositions (and on that point they're absolutely and inarguably correct, regardless of what one might think of the rest of their epistemology). The Christian's presupposition is that the Bible is the special revelation of God, and they don't have to prove that they're correct on that to anyone anymore than a natural philsopher has to prove "beauty is truth" or a Mathematician has to prove the Additive Axiom of Zero. The presupposition that the Bible is God's special revelation is the starting point on which all else is based. If you want them to defend their faith, what makes your worldview and your presuppositions so superior to theirs that they should try to defend theirs on your terms? The presuppositionalist says, "To Hell with that! We're only going to argue it on our own terms! If you want a fight, we're picking the ground... and the weapons!" The wiser ones, however, begin by exposing their interlocutor's presuppositions and demolishing his worldview, so as to justify the move to their own turf.
  • I may be an atheist, but I would still have to reverse the question towards my own kind who read stuff in books and then use that knowledge to say something has been proven, lulz.
  • 1) Before logic was invented, people used to proof things by using the fact that it was written in some books. So probably books became proof in the very moment where they were invented. 2) "Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is: Source A says that p. Source A is authoritative. Therefore, p is true. This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premisses can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  • I'm sorry but u can just love and it'll all be ok. Because, then u will be remembered so when u return to the program u will have a higher form of biology. One that can do incredible things. I love U and i'm sorry i didn't just say this straight out but they have a plan & they know their time is running out. They have become evil in the dark & it has corrupted their spirits. They found out they don't have souls & can only live if they are remembered so they made themselves grand in our eyes but have also tricked good people into not having a chance to return as more. Osara
  • That was a brilliantly ignorant answer to the fact that global warming is fatal to 3/4 of the world population. Good point me writing u instead of you. As if i can't spell. U guys are doctors. Osara
  • For the Christian, the Bible has always been proof and the inerrant Word of Yahweh and always will be. Obviously non-Christians don't believe that, but that will never supplant the fact that Christians do.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy