What counts as "proof" in theology?

[DetlefK]

Theology is like any other algebra: You have a series of statements that are connected to each other via some kind of logic.

My question is: How does this process work?

How does theology get from one statement to the next?

For example:
Somebody claims that God testing Abraham whether he would sacrifice Isaac wasn't a real test. God didn't want to test whether Abraham would do it because the omniscient God knew beforehand that Abraham would do it. But God commanded Abraham to do it anyways because he wanted Abraham and Isaac to realize how much commitment he expects.

How would one prove such a statement, for example this one?
What would count as a proof that any rational person, operating within the framework of theological logic, must accept?



Or for example, two people make contradicting theological claims. What kind of proof would be needed for one person to convince the other?

What counts as proof and what does not count as proof?

[Thomas Hurt]

1. Whatever your Clergy tells you?

[MineralMan]

2. There are no actual "proofs" in theology.

Every argument depends on its initial premise. If the initial premise has no proof of being true, the entire argument is pointless. The initial premise in every religious argument is that a deity exists or that deities exist.

However, many people have religious beliefs. They often accept the initial premise without any proof, on faith alone. Still, however, claims like the one you presented are mere guesswork, since nobody can claim to know the mind of a deity, whether or not it exists.

Religion does not require and cannot provide proofs, because it cannot prove its initial premise.

[DetlefK]

4. But we still must go from initial premises of belief to derived statements.

For example, I remember in "The Name of the Rose" (a murder-mystery set in a medieval monastery) there are two factions debating just what Jesus exactly meant when he commanded his followers to give away their mundane possessions. How much poverty did he actually call for? How much is it okay to keep?

Such a debate cannot be settled from initial premises like God being omnipotent, omniscient, unchanging and whatnot.

[MineralMan]

5. Religion offers apologetics, not logical arguments.

Again, everything is based on an unprovable initial premise.

So, depending on that unprovable premise, secondary statements are derived and used in further faulty logic.

Your illustration of factional debates about what Jesus supposedly said and meant is a good one. There is no logical conclusion that can be drawn, so different factions come up with different conclusions.

The reality is that nobody knows whether someone supposedly named Jesus supposedly said anything at all about giving up possessions. We don't have any real proof that the man existed, and no proof whatever of that man's godly origins.

Apologetics is the logic of unprovable things.

[Bretton Garcia]

10. Theology, sermons, are mostly "sophistry."

Or logical fallacies, as they would be called in Philosophy.

Or they are based on lies, and uprovable premises.

Which is to say, in common English? They are BS.

[MineralMan]

13. Exactly. They look like logic, but aren't logical at all.

Sophistry is an excellent word for it. Bullshit is somewhat more direct, but also accurate.

[uriel1972]

9. The initial premise is the existence of God...

[MineralMan]

14. Yes. Every time "God" is mentioned, that initial premise is restated,

even if it is not openly restated.

Using the word "God" to explain anything involves that original first premise.

[trotsky]

3. This is a fantastic question, and that is why you will not get an answer.

Because theology has none. There is no verification process. That's why everyone has a different opinion about god, and why there are so many religions and sects and cults within them. Yet most people think they are right, and everyone else is wrong.

[Major Nikon]

6. You'll get an answer and that answer is "faith"

The problem is in this instance you could just as easily substitute the word 'delusion' for "faith" and arrive at the exact same point.

[trotsky]

7. And that sign sums up perfectly the #1 problem with religion.

It decouples beliefs from reality - and promotes that as a virtue.

[Major Nikon]

8. I was raised in a small town

Stupidity was considered a virtue. Intelligence and education were things to be feared because these were things that could be used to take advantage of someone (who is stupid). Some of this is just left over rubisms from reconstruction in the South, but it doesn't help that there's a church on every corner and most teachers in primary school started the day with a bible lesson.

It's like the school where Pence's wife works. As impossible as it sounds they are literally teaching ignorance and stupidity to children. While religion isn't really required to do that, it just makes it far more efficient.

[uriel1972]

11. Don't get me started on 'Theodicy'

The art of explaining that whilst God is Omni-powerful and Omni-knowledgeable and created everything and stuff... It's all our fault.. no, sorry, all women's fault. Gotta love religion.. don'cha

[edhopper]

12. We see right in this forum

that believers have no proof, or evidence.

They can only claim that nonbelievers are operating on the faith alone as well. No matter how many times it is explained that that is not true.

[guillaumeb]

15. An incorrect premise, followed by others.

First, theology is not science, it is based on faith.

Second, logic as applied to algebra refers to the provable.

[Bretton Garcia]

16. Since theology is not science or good logic....

... therefore its frequent attempt to look logical or rational, is a deception.

[guillaumeb]

17. Who made a claim of rational or logical?

Any statement dealing with faith, or deities, is not logical because it is unprovable.