Non-catholic Questions....

[Unshackled]

Where in the bible, does the bible teach that the bible alone is our authority for faith and morals?

How do we know what books belong in the bible?

Where in the bible does it say which books belong, or that they are inspired works by God?

Please provide references and scripture, I'm not looking for opinions, I'm looking for facts.

I pray that this brings us all, closer to Christ.

God Bless, Love in Christ,

ironmonk

The Bible does not claim to be the authority for faith and morals. Rather it teaches all believers to be filled with the spirit speaking in tongues and receiving the gifts of the spirit to enable the works of evangelism to be completed (1 Cor 12:4-11) . This will allow the second coming of Jesus to take place. (Eph 5:18) (Heb 2:4) :D

If the Bible laid claims that it alone was the authority, then I would not believe that it was inspired of God. It does however give us the guidelines and authority to make accurate assessments of the validity of other sources. (1 John 4:1) :rolleyes:

[cmotherofpirl]

Wow we agree on something.

THe Bible also describes the Church Jesus left behind and the people he put in charge - leading all thru the centuries to our present Pope.

Most protestant believe that the bible is the only rule of faith and reject the Church founded by Jesus.

THe problem with using only the Holy Spirit to guide you and not the authority of theChurch is evident in the many hundreds of demoniations which all claim to be led by theHoly Spirit.

THey can't all be right.

[Dave]

THROUGH LISTENING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT!

Ummmm . . . Robyn, what makes you certain you're guided by the Holy Spirit when you try and interpret the Bible? How do you know it's not your feelings, opinions, and biases guiding you? Besides, people who come to different conclusions than you regarding the Bible claim that they're guided by the Holy Spirit too. But the problem is, the Holy Spirit cannot lead people to contradictory things. I don't suppose you'd consider yourself infallible, would you? Only God and His Church are infallible.

ah DUH! My faith is based on feelings AND experience AND the leading of the holy spirit...etc. I don't just listen to a preacher and believe everything he has to say...I have a brain.

Try to tell me evolution isn't true...with FACTS! and I mean SCIENTIFIC facts.

It's impossible to state whether creation or evolution is fact! It's a matter of faith.

Ironmonk said TRUTH is not based on feelings. So if you rely on feelings, even if only partly, to determine what is true, then your faith is rather immature. Experience isn't a measure of truth either. As for the Holy Spirit, please see my above remarks.

We Catholics have brains too, ya know. And we believe EVERYTHING the Church teaches because we DO have brains, and our brains tell us it makes good sense to believe what it teaches! Why? Because the Church is infallible and has been teaching the same thing for over 2000 years. Ironmonk has provided you with tons of Scriptural references and quotes from the Early Church Fathers. Please take the time to read them. And don't give us a cop-out like "It's too long" or "I don't have time."

As for evolution and whether or not it's true, I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion at hand.

I don't belive in the "one true church" - I believe in the "church" - Jesus' church.

Jesus' church is the one true church. That church is the Catholic Church. No Protestant church is Jesus' church. All of them are man-made.

[ironmonk]

*Puts on Aussie accent*

Geez! One thing at a time mate! Some of us have to work for a living!

THROUGH LISTENING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT!

ah DUH! My faith is based on feelings AND experience AND the leading of the holy spirit...etc. I don't just listen to a preacher and believe everything he has to say...I have a brain.

Try to tell me evolution isn't true...with FACTS! and I mean SCIENTIFIC facts.

It's impossible to state whether creation or evolution is fact! It's a matter of faith.

I don't belive in the "one true church" - I believe in the "church" - Jesus' church.

THROUGH LISTENING TO THE HOLY SPIRIT!

That's not what the bible teaches. Why do you go by the bible when it was the Catholic Church that gave us the books of the New Testament?

ah DUH! My faith is based on feelings AND experience AND the leading of the holy spirit...etc. I don't just listen to a preacher and believe everything he has to say...I have a brain.

If you have a brain, then study Christian history of where we got the bible and by what authority we got the bible. Also, read what the first Christians taught. To be in the Church that Jesus built, we must look at what the First Chrsitians taught... who where they? Where did they go?

Try to tell me evolution isn't true...with FACTS! and I mean SCIENTIFIC facts.

It's impossible to state whether creation or evolution is fact! It's a matter of faith.

There are facts about where Christianity came from. There are facts and people were there and they recorded the history.

Evolution is theory, no one was there, no one recorded the history.

I don't belive in the "one true church" - I believe in the "church" - Jesus' church.

That's not what the bible teaches... The Church Jesus built was One True Church.... One Faith... not 34,000 worldwide faiths that all argue about what the bible teaches.

Okay, fine. What I'm saying, though, is that if they were deemed by your council of whenever that decided what writings to canonise as scripture, why weren't they included? I'm not sure exactly what the criteria was for a writing to be canonised (can someone enlighten me on this?) but there was obviously some reason that they weren't considered good enough to be scripture.

There were over 200 books considered for the New Testament. The way that the canon was decided on is that the Councils of Catholic Bishops are guided in all Truth as Christ promised (St. John 14:16-18); and they decided which books were inspired through guidence of the Holy Spirit.

Writings can be good to read and truthful without being inspired. For a writing to be inspired means that God guided the author in writing it....the author would not know it was inspired.

There was only One Christian Church for over 1000 years... the One True Church, which is still with us today...

As promised by Christ.

We know that private interpretation of Scripture is bad, from the Scriptures:

2 Peter 1:20 - Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

So, who is to do the interpreting?

The Apostles spoke Aramiac, Scriptures were written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.... They were written over 1900 years ago... meanings of words vary over time.... Who will know it best?

The people that have been keeping safe for over 1900 years, or people who took it from the first Church and applied their own meanings for the last 500 years?

St. Matt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 1:42

Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me"

Ephesus (Ephesians - A Catholic Church) From 27 B.C. till a little after A.D. 297, Ephesus was the capital of the proconsular province of Asia, a direct dependency of the Roman Senate. Though unimportant politically, it was noted for its extensive commerce. Many illustrious persons were born at Ephesus

It was through the Jews that Christianity was first introduced into Ephesus. The original community was under the leadership of Apollo (I Cor., i, 12). They were disciples of St. John the Baptist, and were converted by Aquila and Priscilla. Then came St. Paul, who lived three years at Ephesus to establish and organize the new church; he was wont to teach in the schola or lecture-hall of the rhetorician Tyrannus (Acts, xix, 9) and performed there many miracles..

The Church of Ephesus was committed to his disciple, St. Timothy, a native of the city (I Tim., 1, 3; II Tim., 1, 18; iv, 12). The Epistle of St. Paul to the Esphesians was not perhaps addressed directly to them; it may be only a circular letter sent by him to several churches. The sojourn and death of the Apostle St. John at Ephesus are not mentioned in the New Testament, but both are attested as early as the latter part of the second century by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, iii, 4), Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xx1), Clement of Alexandria, the "Acta Joannis", and a little earlier by St. Justin and the Montanists.

About 110 St. Ignatius of Antioch, having been greeted at Smyrna by messengers of the Church of Ephesus, sent to it one of his seven famous epistles. During the first three centuries, Ephesus was, next to Antioch, the chief centre of Christianity in Asia Minor. In the year 190 its bishop, St. Polycrates, held a council to consider the paschal controversy and declared himself in favour of the Quartodeciman practice; nevertheless the Ephesian Church soon conformed in this particular to the practice of all the other Churches. It seems certain that the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325), confirmed for Ephesus its ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole "diocese" or civil territory of Asia Minor.

Ephesus was taken in 655 and 717 by the Arabs. Later it became the capital of the theme of the Thracesians. During the Iconoclastic period two bishops of Ephesus suffered martyrdom, Hypatius in 735 and Theophilus in the ninth century.

Corinth (Corinthians - Another Catholic Church)

St. Paul preached successfully at Corinth, where he lived in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (Acts, xviii, 1), where Silas and Timothy soon joined him. After his departure he was replaced by Apollo, who had been sent from Ephesus by Priscilla. The Apostle visited Corinth at least once more. He wrote to the Corinthians in 57 from Ephesus, and then from Macedonia in the same year, or in 58. The famous letter of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthian church (about 96) exhibits the earliest evidence concerning the ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman Church. Besides St. Apollo, Lequien (II, 155) mentions forty-three bishops: among them, St. Sosthenes (?), the disciple of St. Paul, St. Dionysius; Paul, brother of St. Peter, Bishop of Argos in the tenth century; St. Athanasius, in the same century; George, or Gregory, a commentator of liturgical hymns. Corinth was the metropolis of all Hellas. After the Byzantine emperors had violently withdrawn Illyricum from Papal direction, Corinth appears as a metropolis with seven suffragan sees; at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were only two united in one title. Since 1890 Corinth, for the Greeks, has been a simple bishopric, but the first in rank, Athens being the sole archbishopric of the Kingdom of Greece. Lequien (III, 883) mentions twenty Latin prelates from 1210 to 1700, the later ones being only titular. But Eubel (I, 218; II, 152) mentions twenty-two archbishops for the period from 1212 to 1476.

It's kind of funny how the Corinthians of today even back the Catholic Church in what the Catholic Church says about who was first.

Antioch - Just read all of St Ignatius writings i've posted here, A very Catholic Church

Rome (Central for Christianity; Peter was the leader of Christians when Jesus went to heaven, authority given to him by Jesus... Peter was the Bishop of Rome; Peter's replacement, would have the same authority as Peter)

The significance of Rome lies primarily in the fact that it is the city of the pope. The Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter, is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Catholic Church. Rome is consequently the centre of unity in belief, the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the seat of the supreme authority which can bind by its enactments the faithful throughout the world.It is here that the history of the Church can be traced from the earliest days, from the humble beginnings in the Catacombs to the majestic ritual of St. Peter's. At every turn one comes upon places hallowed by the deaths of the martyrs, the lives of innumerable saints, the memories of wise and holy pontiffs. From Rome the bearers of the Gospel message went out to the peoples of Europe and eventually to the uttermost ends of the earth. To Rome, again, in every age countless pilgrims have thronged from all the nations, and especially from English-speaking countries. Ancient tradition assigns to the year 42 the first coming of St. Peter to Rome, though, according to the pseudo-Clementine Epistles, St. Barnabas was the first to preach the Gospel in the Eternal City. Under Claudius (c. A.D. 50), the name of Christ had become such an occasion of discord among the Hebrews of Rome that the emperor drove them all out of the city, though they were not long in returning. About ten years later Paul also arrived, a prisoner, and exercised a vigorous apostolate during his sojourn. The Christians were numerous at that time, even at the imperial Court. The burning of the city -- by order of Nero, who wished to effect a thorough renovation -- was the pretext for the first official persecution of the Christian name. Moreover, it was very natural that persecution, which had been occasional, should in course of time have become general and systematic; hence it is unnecessary to transfer the date of the Apostles' martyrdom from the year 67, assigned by tradition, to the year 64 (see PETER, SAINT; PAUL, SAINT). Domitian's reign took its victims both from among the opponents of absolutism and from the Christians; among them some who were of very exalted rank -- Titus Flavius Clemens, Acilius Glabrio (Cemetery of Priscilla), and Flavia Domitilla, a relative of the emperor. It must have been then, too, that St. John, according to a very ancient legend (Tertullian), was brought to Rome. .

The word Catholic comes from the Greek word that means "Universal"...

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou -- throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection", "the absolute or universal goodness of God", "the four principal winds", etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church." However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails as to the precise connotation of the italicized word, and Kattenbusch, the Protestant professor of theology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase in the sense of mia mone, the "one and only" Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922]. .

Peter was the leader, he was in Rome, he wrote from Rome (1 Peter 5:13), he died in Rome. You have a right to live in err, as for me and the 1 Billion Catholics in the world, I think we'll listen to the first Christians, from the oldest organization on earth, The Catholic Church, built by Jesus.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110])

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1). .

Irenaeus

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189])

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Pope Clement I

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Jerome

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

...

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Augustine

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5 [A.D. 397]).

"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Robyn]

Evolution is theory, no one was there, no one recorded the history.

Agreed...now tell me Creation is fact? I don't believe you can.

We know that private interpretation of Scripture is bad, from the Scriptures:

2 Peter 1:20 - Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

MY BIBLES:

2Pe 1:20

(GNB) Above all else, however, remember that none of us can explain by ourselves a prophecy in the Scriptures.

(ISV) First of all, you must understand this: No prophecy in Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

(KJV+) Knowing this first, that no, prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.

(MSG) The main thing to keep in mind here is that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private opinion.

2Pe 3:15 Look on our Lord's patience as the opportunity he is giving you to be saved, just as our dear friend Paul wrote to you, using the wisdom that God gave him. 16 This is what he says in all his letters when he writes on the subject. There are some difficult things in his letters which ignorant and unstable people explain falsely, as they do with other passages of the Scriptures. So they bring on their own destruction. 17 But you, my friends, already know this. Be on your guard, then, so that you will not be led away by the errors of lawless people and fall from your safe position.

2Pe 3:18 But continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory, now and forever! Amen.

I'm not convinced. It says we "already know this" - therefore my contention is that it means we CAN understand the scriptures thorugh the help of the holy spirit. But of course, on their own, we won't. We need HIM.

If we can't understand our bibles, then I'll just have to go and burn all mine... :lol:

Edited September 11, 2003 by Robyn

[ICTHUS]

I'm not convinced. It says we "already know this" - therefore my contention is that it means we CAN understand the scriptures thorugh the help of the holy spirit. But of course, on their own, we won't. We need HIM.

If we can't understand our bibles, then I'll just have to go and burn all mine...

But how do you know that your interpretation through the Spirit is the right one?

Answer: If it lines up with the teaching of Christ's Church. The Catholic Church

[[jas]]

How do you know that your church is right? What do you test it against?

[jasJis]

,Sep 11 2003, 02:59 AM] How do you know that your church is right? What do you test it against?

An excellent question, [jas]!

How do we know?

It's not like we can use scientific proof alone to prove this. Scientific proof alone cannot prove God exists. But scientific proof cannot prove that God does not exist either.

A combination of logic and reason can lead us to a logical and reasonable conclusion that the Church one belongs to is legitimate and not a fad or a cult. Beyond that, grace, prayer, and time is required to develop faith in the logical and reasonable conclusion.

The tests I've used are:

Simple and basic logic.

Broad historical context to defeat narrow and biased historical interpretation.

Philisophical reasoning.

Prayerful contemplation.

Affirmation of my assumptions reflected in Scripture, Church teachings, and God speaking to my conscience.

I have to take everything together. I may follow a line of reasoning based on 'gut feeling', but I need to apply my mind, heart, and soul to make a commitment to a belief.

[ironmonk]

Agreed...now tell me Creation is fact? I don't believe you can.

Look around... the fact that we exist proves creation... we had a beginning.

It's easy to prove, but you fail to think about things and actually look for answers.

I'm not convinced. It says we "already know this" - therefore my contention is that it means we CAN understand the scriptures thorugh the help of the holy spirit. But of course, on their own, we won't. We need HIM.

If we can't understand our bibles, then I'll just have to go and burn all mine...

That's not what the bible teaches. You claim to go by it, but you deny it's teachings...

Acts 8:30-35 - And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?

31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.

33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth?

34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.

2 Peter 1:20 - Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16 - As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

...but don't tare you bible up...

Do some study....

Are you scared to study? Christian history IS NOT anceint... people did know how to write... how do you think we got the books of the bible.

This will be my last reply until you do some study.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Robyn]

THAT IS NOT PROOF! I could say the same thing about the big bang theory.

:rolleyes:

[ironmonk]

No you could not say the same thing about the big bang theory.

The big bang theory falls apart when looked at with the laws of physics.

There is a law of conservation of matter.

The only logical explination for life is that God created us... we do not know how he created us, but He did.

Look at your monitor... not just the screen but the whole thing. Could that just happen by chance? No. How do you know that it had a creator? Because it is complex and would be impossible that the elements would come together like that.

Like I said... do some study.

We are to question everything in Christianity... but we must hunt for the answers to those questions... the answers to the questions that need to be asked are not philosophical answers, that are factual answers... There is only one truth.

You must first go back to 33 AD and start there if you want to know the complete truth.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Robyn]

The only logical explination for life is that God created us... we do not know how he created us, but He did.

You said "logical explanation" - I'm sorry, that's still not proof!

Science must be duplicable...creation is based on faith and belief, and yes logic, but it's not easy to prove. Especially since it cannot be duplicated. That was my original point.

(no I'm not asking for replies. Just making a point)

[Joolye]

creation is based on faith and belief, and yes logic, but it's not easy to prove.

Amen to that. If everything was proveable, then there would be no need for faith.

(no I'm not asking for replies. Just making a point)

Too bad, you got a reply!!!

He he!! :ph34r:

[Robyn]

amen sista!!! :lol:

[ironmonk]

You said "logical explanation" - I'm sorry, that's still not proof!

Science must be duplicable...creation is based on faith and belief, and yes logic, but it's not easy to prove. Especially since it cannot be duplicated. That was my original point.

(no I'm not asking for replies. Just making a point)

Your point is flawed.

It is proof.

Law of physics... Something CANNOT come from nothing.

The only explination is God.

I suggest you do some real study, because very long articles have been written on the subject.

The Fact that Jesus lived, the facts of His life, the facts of Fatima and other proofs, Padre Pio, etc....

Proves that God is real.... JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT STUDIED DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO PROOF.

God is fact, not a fairy tail... there is ample proof, if you look... One must have a good foundation of logical thinking too.

-ironmonk