Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

If all of them had come true and we were able to verify that then I might agree. But the fact is that there are very many failed prophecies, a lot of which it is no longer possible to have come true as the people and places etc no longer exist. There are very many unverifiable prophecies, where the fulfillment of the propechy is a matter of faith on the same source as the origin of the propechy. And there are very many claims of prophecy fulfillment where no evidence can be found of the prophecy being made in the first place, just a claim that "this happened as the scripture foretold" at the time of fulfillment. There may be some prophecies that have been fulfilled, but throw enough darts at a dartboard and some of them will inevitably hit the bullseye.

But you're avoiding the question. I ask again - do you care in whether what you believe is the truth? And if you do care, how do you know if what you currently believe is true?

[jonesthecurl]

We've done the one about "fulfilled prophecies". I'm still waiting for the "secualr historians" that tell how much Judas got paid, and for any corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus, let alone his divinity or fulfilled prophecies.

[premio53]

We've done the one about "fulfilled prophecies". I'm still waiting for the "secualr historians" that tell how much Judas got paid, and for any corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus, let alone his divinity or fulfilled prophecies.

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him." Napoleon Bonaparte

[crispybits]

And Napoleon Boneparte is an authority on theology since when?

Don't you ever, I don't know, think and form your own posts instead of producing random, meaningless and irrelevant quotes that have no bearing whatsoever on the dicsussion.

I'm going to try one last time premio - it's a very simple, open question. There's no trap in there, there's no trick question where whichever way you answer it I go off into one and prove you wrong somehow, it's just a genuine (and importantly on-topic) expression of curiosity.

Do you care if what you believe is true? And if you do, how do you know that what you profess to believe about God is true?

[jonesthecurl]

We've done the one about "fulfilled prophecies". I'm still waiting for the "secualr historians" that tell how much Judas got paid, and for any corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus, let alone his divinity or fulfilled prophecies.

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him." Napoleon Bonaparte

Um, so somebody in the past believed in him 17 centuries after his supposed existence.
Anything else?

And I don't want the standard "Well, how much evidence is there for Caesar"answer. This is a specific point - you and your clone Viceroy, feeding from the same creationist information trough, claim these fulfilled prophecies. I have asked two questions pretty much at random about the supposed "fulfilled prophecies" and I can't get a shred of historical evidence from you for even the physical existence of your main man.

[premio53]

And Napoleon Boneparte is an authority on theology since when?

Don't you ever, I don't know, think and form your own posts instead of producing random, meaningless and irrelevant quotes that have no bearing whatsoever on the dicsussion.

I'm going to try one last time premio - it's a very simple, open question. There's no trap in there, there's no trick question where whichever way you answer it I go off into one and prove you wrong somehow, it's just a genuine (and importantly on-topic) expression of curiosity.

Do you care if what you believe is true? And if you do, how do you know that what you profess to believe about God is true?

I will give you one last thing to think about. I have no desire to force you to accept something against your own will. You can weigh the evidence. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ is proof in itself.

""Socrates taught for 40 years, Plato for 50, Aristotle for 40, and Jesus for only 3. Yet the influence of Christ's 3-year ministry infinitely transcends the impact left by the combined 130 years of teaching from these men who were among the greatest phioosophers of all antiquity. Jesus painted no pictures; yet, some of the finest paintings of Raphael, Michelangelo, and Leonardo da Vinci received their inspiration from Him.
"Jesus wrote no poetry; but Dante, Milton, and scores of the world's greatest poets were inspired by Him. Jesus composed no music; still Haydn, Handel, Beethoven, Bach, and Mendelssohn reached their highest perfection of melody in the hymns, symphonies, and oratories they composed in His praise. Every sphere of human greatness has been enriched by this humble Carpenter of Nazareth." The Evidence Bible

What is required of you or anyone else? Nothing but repentance and faith in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

[crispybits]

Sometimes I wonder (and I mean no offence to Player or Daddygringo or the other decent conversationalist theists on here with this) if some religious folk on the internet are actually early stage AI experiments, because whenever you ask a straight question they start tap-dancing and skirting the issue and never actually just give a very basic, honest answer. It sure as hell would be a good way to test out which algorithms work and which don't for the programmers....

[premio53]

Sometimes I wonder (and I mean no offence to Player or Daddygringo or the other decent conversationalist theists on here with this) if some religious folk on the internet are actually early stage AI experiments, because whenever you ask a straight question they start tap-dancing and skirting the issue and never actually just give a very basic, honest answer. It sure as hell would be a good way to test out which algorithms work and which don't for the programmers....

You mean tap dancing about how is it impossible for spontaneous generation to take place and then do a 180 and explain how it might be possible after all by changing the wording "spontaneous generation" to "abiogenesis" or denying that there is a Creator when we see design all around us in the universe? Contradictions like that?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Sometimes I wonder (and I mean no offence to Player or Daddygringo or the other decent conversationalist theists on here with this) if some religious folk on the internet are actually early stage AI experiments, because whenever you ask a straight question they start tap-dancing and skirting the issue and never actually just give a very basic, honest answer. It sure as hell would be a good way to test out which algorithms work and which don't for the programmers....

Damn you're onto us.

Now it's just a matter of time before someone puts 2 and 2 together and notices the new wave of YECs appeared around the time I started posting those analyses of posting habits in the club.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Sometimes I wonder (and I mean no offence to Player or Daddygringo or the other decent conversationalist theists on here with this) if some religious folk on the internet are actually early stage AI experiments, because whenever you ask a straight question they start tap-dancing and skirting the issue and never actually just give a very basic, honest answer. It sure as hell would be a good way to test out which algorithms work and which don't for the programmers....

You mean tap dancing about how is it impossible for spontaneous generation to take place and then do a 180 and explain how it might be possible after all by changing the wording "spontaneous generation" to "abiogenesis" or denying that there is a Creator when we see design all around us in the universe? Contradictions like that?

I think my algorithm misfired with this one though. It's a bit too obvious of a dodge.

[crispybits]

To premio's programmer:

When you go back through the logs and read this conversation, I think you better work on premio's comprehension, particularly of basic concepts:

Do you care if what you believe is the truth?

The Koran is false!

Do you care if what you believe is the truth?

The chances of all these things that didn't actually happen to have happened are impossible!

Do you care if what you believe is the truth?

Napoleon believed in Jesus!

Do you care if what you believe is the truth?

The Jesus story inpsired lots of people!

*gives up*

Tries (and fails) to semantically shift the flaws in the argument from design onto simple scientific semantics

Notice how nowhere in these responses is any sort of answer to that one simple question: "Do you care if what you believe is the truth?"

[warmonger1981]

Revelations says no man woman or child will be able buy sell trade goods without mark of beast. Today you cannot do any of those thing without a birth certificate.finger print. retina scan. Credit card which will track your buying habbits. Gps tracking on your cell phone. Survalience videos. Face recognition systems. Drones. Social security number.Everything anyone does at anytime can practically be monitored 24/7. Sounds like the Bible hit that 1. But I'm just as crazy as you get. If that's what you wanna call it. The mark does not say it is visible with the naked eye. Welcome to crazy town and I'm the mayor.

[crispybits]

Which number of the beast are you referencing there warmonger? Because there's at least 2 (666 and 616) depending which translations you're basing the story from. Or it could be a name I guess but the next point holds. Revelation says the mark has to be on the right hand or forehead, and last I checked our birth certificates, credit cards, cell phones and all that other stuff isn't on our right hand or forehead. Fingerprints and retinas are something we have always had, and therefore they cannot be a mark the beast gives us when it comes.

So yep - crazy - but at least you're honest enough to admit it

[jonesthecurl]

And Napoleon Boneparte is an authority on theology since when?

Don't you ever, I don't know, think and form your own posts instead of producing random, meaningless and irrelevant quotes that have no bearing whatsoever on the dicsussion.

I'm going to try one last time premio - it's a very simple, open question. There's no trap in there, there's no trick question where whichever way you answer it I go off into one and prove you wrong somehow, it's just a genuine (and importantly on-topic) expression of curiosity.

Do you care if what you believe is true? And if you do, how do you know that what you profess to believe about God is true?

I will give you one last thing to think about. I have no desire to force you to accept something against your own will. You can weigh the evidence. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ is proof in itself.

""Socrates taught for 40 years, Plato for 50, Aristotle for 40, and Jesus for only 3. Yet the influence of Christ's 3-year ministry infinitely transcends the impact left by the combined 130 years of teaching from these men who were among the greatest phioosophers of all antiquity. Jesus painted no pictures; yet, some of the finest paintings of Raphael, Michelangelo, and Leonardo da Vinci received their inspiration from Him.
"Jesus wrote no poetry; but Dante, Milton, and scores of the world's greatest poets were inspired by Him. Jesus composed no music; still Haydn, Handel, Beethoven, Bach, and Mendelssohn reached their highest perfection of melody in the hymns, symphonies, and oratories they composed in His praise. Every sphere of human greatness has been enriched by this humble Carpenter of Nazareth." The Evidence Bible

What is required of you or anyone else? Nothing but repentance and faith in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Oh, so apart from Napoleon, some other dead people believed in him.
Obviously then no non-believers have ever achieved anything, nor anyone from any other religions. Lucky that, cos it might make your point look a little silly.

[warmonger1981]

rfid chip implants possible? Just throwing it out there. Not saying Im right or wrong Im not God but evidence is mounting to a near future possibility. So technically it hasn't happened yet but getting close? With a global financial meltdown I believe cash will be obsolete. It will be a credit society completely. When that happens I don't know but I dont see governments ever getting their financial house in order. Ive said my 2 cents in. I have to get back to crazy town. I have an appointment with the Mad Hatter. F#cking plumbing is all jacked up...

[crispybits]

OK - so prophecy X will come true if prophecy X does come true. I have taken careful notes and I will certainly say to myself "oh golly what a fool I've been" if the antichrist marks me with his name or number on my right hand or forehead

Hope your plumbing gets fixed!

[jonesthecurl]

Sounds like the Bible hit that 1.

Not saying Im right or wrong

Oh, sorry. Thought you were saying you were right.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

The chances of the many prophecies in the Bible had as much chance of coming true as putting a piece of meat in a sealed jar and watching life spontaneous generate some time in the next hundred billion years.

So... 0?

This is ironic considering spontaneous generation was disproven by Redi in the 17th century with meat in sealed flasks.

"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him." Napoleon Bonaparte

lol. Napoleon was indifferent to religion personally. He was a deist. He used religion as a tool to control his empire. He took a similar view to Voltaire, in that atheism for the masses would be bad.

-TG

[crispybits]

To put it another way, faith is only part about serving God in and of itself. It is also about how we are who we are, growing into what we should be. The journey each of us has differs. So, the words and messages we hear will differ, too. Just as a parent must recognize that a child gifted in music has very different needs than a child gifted in sports (not to say you cannot be gifted in both!), so is God able to recognize that our needs differ. I know of parents who make their kids garden as punishment... and others who take the shovel and rake away as punishment. Waht is the overall standard? That punishment should be unpleasant, to teach that doing what is right is less painful than doing what is wrong. That ultimate goal is the same for every parent, but how we go about it differs highly indeed... in fact, even our views of right and wrong might differ, though that is another story.

I replied to DaddyG so you're getting a reply too here Player. On the metaphysical stuff I've kinda dealt with your claims in the same post as I dealt with DaddyG's claims, so I won't repeat any of that. I will say that your relativism totally confuses me at times though. Sometimes (admittedly not in the bits of this post I snipped out) it seems to me as if you are saying that christianity is whatever you want it to be as long as it's loosely based on biblical teachings or on the life and teachings of Christ. But I could construct an absolutely vile moral standard based even just on New Testament teachings if I chose to go through it and cherry pick the bits I found to be most horrible. And this cherry-picking is exactly the same in principle as what you do when you pick only the nice bits. From a scriptural standpoint, we would both have some scripture that contradicted our positions, and we would both have exactly the same evidence for and authority for our beliefs.

Relativism and asserting that bits of the Bible can be discarded because they don't fit any more is like saying that you choose to obey the law, but you don't agree with the law against speeding because modern cars are much safer at high speed than older cars when the laws were passed, so you'll drive as fast as you want whenever you want, and then crucially that you expect to not be punished when you get caught speeding by the cops purely because you assert (regardless of the books of law on record) that this bit of the law does not apply to you.

But anyway, I digress slightly. I wanted to address your children and punishment analogy. It simply doesn't work. If you punish a child for a wrong deed, then that punishment is finite and limited in scope. You might take away things the child enjoys, or force them to do chores, or send them to their room with no ice cream for dessert or whatever, but none of that compares, even remotely, to what God supposedly does, which is to lock us in the basement, which just happens to be on fire, for ever and ever and ever and ever. Can you think of any way in which it would be moral or fair to punish anyone who has committed a finite and limited wrong deed with an infinite sentence? Can you imagine putting your children through extreme, total, agonising pain (either physical or emotional) for even a short time, let alone eternity, for anything they could possibly do wrong? Add into that that the only truly unforgivable wrong deed is to not love God (i.e a thought crime rather than a manifest action), and that everything else can be forgiven, and in my opinion that right there is a massively screwed up moral system.

It's akin to a country saying "for the crime of not being totally and genuinely patriotic and loving this country deep in your heart we will take you to this place where highly trained surgeons who know the ways to cause you excrutiating pain but not kill you will work on inflicting the maximum amount of pain they can, and meanwhile they'll also give you the best possible medical care so that you live as long as possible." and then that country also saying "for every other crime this punishment will also apply unless you genuinely and totally submit to patriotic ideals and beliefs deep in your heart, in which case nothing bad will happen and the state will fund your lifestye for a massive beach house in Malibu with everything you ever want delivered to your door within minutes by highly motivated government agents."

[Viceroy63]

In order for a human being to exist after death in some spiritual dimension, the human being in question must first be of a spiritual existence in the first place, and this is simply not so. Not according to the Bible it isn't.

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
-Genesis 2:7

Man is a physical and mortal, corporeal (dirt of the ground) entity, "A Living Soul" and not an eternally existing spiritual being. Otherwise the Bible would plainly say so and it does not.

Every verse of the Bible that is used to teach that men live on, after death, is a gross misunderstanding of Bible Scriptures and not part of the true teachings of the Bible.

Many people even attempt to use the Parable of "Lazarus and the Rich Man" to show that Jesus was teaching that men do live on after death and that there are places where people go after they die. But careful evaluation of Bible scriptures proves this teaching to be wrong.

At least in the case of the Parable of "Lazarus and the Rich Man" it is just a "Parable!" And Parables are used to describe something other than what they seemingly represent. Even if the Parable were a true example of what happens to a person after they die, Why would Jesus Cry (John 11:35) if Lazarus had gone to a good place? That simply just doesn't make any sense?

I would think that one would be happy if one knew that one's loved one's, went on to a far, Far, better place and would only be saddened if they went into some terrible form of existence. Seeing how Jesus is the one who told the Parable, It seems to me that he would know. Unless the parable was simply a teaching tool to explain something other than life after death. Perhaps a just and righteous judgment after the facts of mens deeds.

It seems to me that if that were true, that when you die you either go to a heaven or a hell, that right here would have been the perfect place and time to expound on that doctrine. But amazingly, Jesus is completely quiet on the subject of life after death, for a man going around teaching on heavenly/spiritual things?

Can it be that Jesus felt no need to teach on a topic that was completely understood in His day by every one around Him? And that the people simply had no need to be taught on that subject any further? After all, Lazarus sister surely knew what was going on!

"Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
-John 11:24

[warmonger1981]

How about I say I'm right when it happens. Until then I look like a fool and will be lost in your memory. But if I'm right. Aaagghh shit.

[crispybits]

Viceroy, while it's true that the bible doesn't specify that we have an immortal soul with the specificity that you state, it is true that the bible teaches that at the end times we will all be resurrected, and those who accepted God will be with him in a paradise (the Kingdom of Heaven) and some will be outcast (sent to Hell), and also that we have a spirit.

Matthew 26:41-46 (Jesus' own words):

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Luke 23:39-43 (again Jesus' own words)

39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

John 3:5-8 (that guy Jesus again)

5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

So unless you subscribe to the same relativism I was asking Player about, which has the same problems as I asked her about (and now by extension ask you about), then Jesus himself (without any reference to anything outside of the four gospels) says that we are spiritual beings, and that eternal punishment or paradise awaits us after death and ressurection. I didn't even need to go into Revelations (New Testament) that goes into a load of details about the end times and confirms eternal suffering for those that did not believe, let alone any of the Old Testament stuff, to find that.

[crispybits]

How about I say I'm right when it happens. Until then I look like a fool and will be lost in your memory. But if I'm right. Aaagghh shit.

Yep sure, you'll get no disagreement from me.

I'm going to predict right now that the Green Bay Packers will win the superbowl every year for five years between 2025 and 2029. God gave me a vision last night as I slept that this would come to pass. How about we say I'm right until that happens. Are you going to go out and place any sort of wager on that? The supposed stakes with your "assume I'm right" statement are much, much higher (for example if you're wrong and Islam / Judaism / other are the correct path to God, then I'm screwed if I chose to believe in the Christian myths)

[chang50]

How about I say I'm right when it happens. Until then I look like a fool and will be lost in your memory. But if I'm right. Aaagghh shit.

Yep sure, you'll get no disagreement from me.

I'm going to predict right now that the Green Bay Packers will win the superbowl every year for five years between 2025 and 2029. God gave me a vision last night as I slept that this would come to pass. How about we say I'm right until that happens. Are you going to go out and place any sort of wager on that? The supposed stakes with your "assume I'm right" statement are much, much higher (for example if you're wrong and Islam / Judaism / other are the correct path to God, then I'm screwed if I chose to believe in the Christian myths)

I wince every time I see Pascal's wager wheeled out.I'm in danger of developing a facial tic..

[crispybits]

In order for a human being to exist after death in some spiritual dimension, the human being in question must first be of a spiritual existence in the first place, and this is simply not so. Not according to the Bible it isn't.

"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
-Genesis 2:7

Man is a physical and mortal, corporeal (dirt of the ground) entity, "A Living Soul" and not an eternally existing spiritual being. Otherwise the Bible would plainly say so and it does not.

Was just rereading this quickly to make sure that what I had posted addressed your point, and when I thought about it some more this section really confused me.

We are living souls, by your assertion. Yet if we accept that assertion as fact for the sake of argument, we must be something other than physical. I could point to your brain or your pancreas or your legs, and they would all be physical manifestations of you. But no doctor has ever found a little squidgy bit of flesh that forms a soul.

So, either the soul is a non-physical part of us, part of our essence as human beings, or it is physical. In the absence of any physical evidence of the existence of a soul, we have to conclude that to the limits of our understanding, a soul is non-physical. Now that doesn't prove it's spiritual, and I accept that, but I would ask that if you are making the assertion that we have a living soul (which by the way I refute due to lack of evidence), what is the nature of this living soul? We cannot find any physical evidence for it, and you say it is not spiritual, so is it purely conceptual? Is it something else?

I don't make such a claim, I don't say that any of us have a soul. I simply ask either (a) if we are spiritual beings and the bible is accurate then we shall suffer infinite punishment for finite crimes, is that morally consistent, or (b) if we are not spiritual beings then on what grounds could we ever experience anything, either before or after death, that would make any difference whatsoever to us? Why is all religion and spirituality not totally meaningless garbage that's not worth wasting any time and effort on?