Proof is based on sufficient evidence. Evidence is that which constitutes proof. Exactly what constitutes "proof" or what is considered "sufficient" evidence is a based on human factors. Extraordinary or not, any proof requires sufficient evidence.
Obviously the evidence I offered is not sufficient proof to you. Ultimately, we decide what is true or not true. So, no matter how you turn it around, we believe in that which meets our personal standard of "sufficient evidence." It is utterly solipsistic in nature.
I forget which of you Grpls said it, but I think it’s true. You cannot PROVE the existence of God.
On this one, I’m going to make Kosta smile. I disagree with him on so much so often, he’ll probably think he won the lottery or something.
Paul(?) says it in Chapter 11 of Hebrews so well. It’s by FAITH that we know that God created. It is through BELIEVING in Him that we are saved.
That doesn’t mean that faith is irrational, because one can compile such a compelling evidentiary case that it amazes me that I didn’t always believe. RnMomof7 used to tell me that I didn’t pull up my faith bootstraps and save myself by conjuring up a sufficient number of grains of faith. It struck me at the time. But, it clearly is so.
Unless you’re born again you can’t (EVEN) see the Kingdom of God.
I believe God intentionally left it in the realm of faith. Those who come to Him must BELIEVE that He is, and that He’s a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Some simply aren’t coming in, because some simply won’t ever have faith.