Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Neoteny]

It's not so much a lack of evidence; it's more a lack of evidence that doesn't fit other possibilities better.

[Lionz]

In your opinion based on a limited amount of personal experience and acquired knowledge maybe. : )

[jonesthecurl]

Neoteny,

If you mean to suggest there's no evidence for Him, can you define evidence?

Please define "define" first.

[Lionz]

Question that's already been addressed perhaps, but you want me to define define? How about define as in tell me a definition of? You want a definition of definition? How about meaning of?

[BigBallinStalin]

Umm wow dude, just wow.

I wasn't giving any sources except your own picture that you posted and the one I posted. Can you not see the difference here? I'm showing a difference in the picures that I don't need a source for. That's like asking what the number on Jordans back was in the last game he played as a Chicago Bull. It is clear to me, with my eyes that it was 23. Thanks.

You said that you already explained the differnece, but you really didn't. Please oh pretty please tell me how the two images in the photo YOU posted are photograpic negatives of one another. The one I posted is however, regardless of where I got the picture from.... is it not???

Stop trying to beat around the bush. Thanks.

Dodge for the win. I've already addressed this about the photograph by saying I'm very limited on that area and can't really discuss it, but to assume that some observable phenomena (which it might not even be, since you really haven't explained how it could be one), but to assume that this observation is proof of God is merely jumping to a conclusion without really looking at other explanations.

Throughout your entire original post, that's all you did, while ignoring any other possible reasonable explanation. So when I wanted to get more involved into what you posted, I needed sources, because you're intentionally or perhaps unintentionally leaving out a lot of information. Without your sources, you're just being intellectually dishonest because you yourself are not credible enough of a source, like you admitted much earlier.

No matter how mad you get, you're still being dishonest. You hinge on this one point as if this photograph is everything that needs to be debated in order to prove your point that God exists. It doesn't! There's plenty of other things to debate about, but you mention them once, fail to show proper backing, and avoid them like rabies.

[Calidus]

You brought up "observation is proof of God is merely jumping to a conclusion without really looking at other explanations." so i will explain even though if you read the previous posts I already have...I will be a bit more clear.

First of all, you have to believe in what I wrote is true. I am not purposly trying to seem dishonest with what I write. When I wrote my "evidence" it was from a compilation of soources viewed at over 7 hours worth. I am not going to find all of these people and figure out exactly when they themselves studied the Shroud and such. To be very honest with you, I can not say what I wrote is 100% fact, but I can say that I personally believe in it. I never once ever ever ever ever said you HAD or SHOULD or MUST also believe in it. You can if you want though. So again the conlcusion I make is based on that what i believe is true (Just like saying the Bible is true...you can't really prove things in it you can only believe in them).

2.So, if the Shroud of Turin is authentic then it authentic would imply that it was put around Jesus and that what the scriptures say is true (Ironically all of the evidence I have that comes from a science point of view end up showing up in the Biblical way as well). If this is ture, then you have to say that the Shroud of Turin is evidence for Jesus right? Again, IF it is true.... then it would be evidence for Jesus existing..correct?

3. IF Jesus existed than here is the fill in information you have to know that I and may other Christians believe. Basically we believe that Jesus IS God...so therefore based on 1 and 2 then the Shroud of Turin would be evidence for God.

Extra: I believe that if Jesus existed then he must be God because I also believe the following: Either he is or is not God.

If he is not God he must be one of 3 things: A liar, just a moral person, or insane.

If he was a liar there has to be a reason for this. Popularity? Nope, at the time Jesus lived he was very unpopular..he only became public the last 3 years of his life. Trying to get attention? Nope, because if you want attention it is because you want to do something to benifit yourself. Dying onthe cross is not very benificial. Lastly, if not for these reasons then it would have to be that he was simply just insane.

I wil get to the insane part in a bit. Lets look at "Just a moral person". First off, Jesus said and showed that he was God. So lying would mean that he's not a moral person. Second, all of the mericles that he showed would, if not from God, be "acts of magic" or things in order to trick and decieve people. This is not a very moral thing to do right?
So again, this would lead to being insane.

I could actually buy this idea, except for one thing. In order to be insane, you have to be viewed that way by the majority of people. Christianity is the largest religious sect in the world. I could be wrong, but I think the figure is around 16% of people in the world who a) didn't respond to the religious question b) are atheist c) are agnostic or d) having no prefrence. There are many people who revolve their calanders around the birth of Jesus and the fact that he was born in year 0. BC is known as before Christ and AD has been known as After Death. This is only half correct. You can't say 1BC was one year before Christ and 1AD was 1 year after death if Jesus lived for 33 years. AD actually stands for "anno domini" which means "in the year of our Lord." So you see, almost everyone in the world uses these notations. Is everyone just really insane. Some people use B.C.E. and A.C.E. to mean Before Common Era and After Common Era...LOL wtf is the "Common Era" if not refering to the time period around Christ. Also....who said it was "common".


I believe Jesus is God because I don't think he was a liar, I don't think he was just another moral person, and I don't think that Billions of people on the earth are insane, after all if Jesus was insane then so would all these people be too for following him or at least revolving much of their life around him, right?

[john9blue]

Re: the flying teapot... different from God because the universe itself serves as evidence for God. How could a universe without spontaneous generation come into being without an external creator? Furthermore, undetectable things probably don't exist because all things we know are detectable.

OK OK ::sigh:: the teapot is magical and creates worlds. Better? Now what?

Re: the FSM... it's hard to believe in because it's a special nonsense case. God as a concept is much larger than the FSM alone. It's as if I compared the existence of a cat with the existence of a cat made of meatballs and noodles.

[Lionz]

Calidus,

You've mixed up Era with Error and C.E. with A.C.E. maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

It's not so much a lack of evidence; it's more a lack of evidence that doesn't fit other possibilities better.

Only in your opinion, that is the point.

Many intelligent scientists poo-pooed the idea that ulcers could be created by bacteria. A few disagreed and persisted, until they found proof. Science is full of such situations. This is why the standards of "fact" and "proof" are so very, very, very high in science.

You wish to shortchange that process because this one idea does not happen to fit into your worldview. I don't dispute your right, either from a human or scientific perspective, to assert what you belief. I just dispute your saying it is more than that..that is is somehow superior logic or more than just belief. That is being a very poor scientist, indeed.

As for the insult... you know these matters are things some people hold very, very deeply. You also happen to know I am not an idiot, not given to just leaps of illogic or supposition. I don't ask that you agree with my belief, but to decide because I disagree with you on this point that somehow I am therefore inferior and you superior.. that is arrogance and well beneath your normal state of being and debate.

I repeat, you don't have to agree, but to claim that people who think as I are universally just not as intelligent, not as logical, even not as scientific as those of you who wish to disbelieve in God.. THAT is just wrong. It is wrong because it is exclusionary. That is OK in a church, including an atheist discussion group, etc. It is NOT OK in the realm of science. It is NOT OK when you are interviewing someone to work with you and you look down on them, even subtly, because they don't share your belief. It is wrong because you have cut yourself off from whole realms of reasoning and thinking that might, possibly lead you to a new answer. That is, I am not saying you might find God, I am saying that allowing your mind to consider that there is at least a possibility for God, that there is no definite proof against God, will also leave yourself open to other ideas.

[Lionz]

Neoteny has actually come across pretty respectful to me maybe. You refer to a specific insult?

[Snorri1234]

Let me draw your attention to two important words in snorri's post.

No, you don't get a pass on this one. In this context whether you add "not" is irrelevant. The belief in flying teapots or lack of it, is not in any way equivalent to belief in God.

If I ever find someone who really and truly does believe in flying teapots or pink elephants or whatever, then they will have justification. You two do not. You are merely being insulting. And you are quite intelligent enough to understand what you do.

You have every right to deny God. I agree it is an intelligent and logical position. However, so is belief in God. Claiming otherwise IS illogical.. and when you do it in that manner, insulting

Adding "not" is very important because it's the point. The dismissal of flying teapots as ridiculous and then saying that the same doesn't go for "God" is not logically sound.

Your entire argument seems to based around an argumentum ad populum. You don't give a reason for God being special, you just say he is special because a lot of people believe he's special. It doesn't work that way, 50 million Elvis fans can be wrong.

[john9blue]

I would have to agree player, an opinion can be insulting and go against the majority, but in the end it's either right or wrong.

[BigBallinStalin]

You brought up "observation is proof of God is merely jumping to a conclusion without really looking at other explanations." so i will explain even though if you read the previous posts I already have...I will be a bit more clear.

First of all, you have to believe in what I wrote is true. I am not purposly trying to seem dishonest with what I write. When I wrote my "evidence" it was from a compilation of soources viewed at over 7 hours worth. I am not going to find all of these people and figure out exactly when they themselves studied the Shroud and such. To be very honest with you, I can not say what I wrote is 100% fact, but I can say that I personally believe in it. I never once ever ever ever ever said you HAD or SHOULD or MUST also believe in it. You can if you want though. So again the conlcusion I make is based on that what i believe is true (Just like saying the Bible is true...you can't really prove things in it you can only believe in them).

2.So, if the Shroud of Turin is authentic then it authentic would imply that it was put around Jesus and that what the scriptures say is true (Ironically all of the evidence I have that comes from a science point of view end up showing up in the Biblical way as well). If this is ture, then you have to say that the Shroud of Turin is evidence for Jesus right? Again, IF it is true.... then it would be evidence for Jesus existing..correct?

3. IF Jesus existed than here is the fill in information you have to know that I and may other Christians believe. Basically we believe that Jesus IS God...so therefore based on 1 and 2 then the Shroud of Turin would be evidence for God.

There is nothing from that Shroud that suggests that it was wrapped around Jesus. It could've been anyone, and its age has yet to be dated properly. And the scriptures just state that he was wrapped in a cloth; it doesn't state that Jesus was wrapped in the Shroud the Turin, so the Bible can't help you on that one.

So, do you see where you've made your leap of faith?

Extra: I believe that if Jesus existed then he must be God because I also believe the following: Either he is or is not God.

If he is not God he must be one of 3 things: A liar, just a moral person, or insane.

If he was a liar there has to be a reason for this. Popularity? Nope, at the time Jesus lived he was very unpopular..he only became public the last 3 years of his life. Trying to get attention? Nope, because if you want attention it is because you want to do something to benifit yourself. Dying onthe cross is not very benificial. Lastly, if not for these reasons then it would have to be that he was simply just insane.

I wil get to the insane part in a bit. Lets look at "Just a moral person". First off, Jesus said and showed that he was God. So lying would mean that he's not a moral person. Second, all of the mericles that he showed would, if not from God, be "acts of magic" or things in order to trick and decieve people. This is not a very moral thing to do right?
So again, this would lead to being insane.

I could actually buy this idea, except for one thing. In order to be insane, you have to be viewed that way by the majority of people. Christianity is the largest religious sect in the world. I could be wrong, but I think the figure is around 16% of people in the world who a) didn't respond to the religious question b) are atheist c) are agnostic or d) having no prefrence. There are many people who revolve their calanders around the birth of Jesus and the fact that he was born in year 0. BC is known as before Christ and AD has been known as After Death. This is only half correct. You can't say 1BC was one year before Christ and 1AD was 1 year after death if Jesus lived for 33 years. AD actually stands for "anno domini" which means "in the year of our Lord." So you see, almost everyone in the world uses these notations. Is everyone just really insane. Some people use B.C.E. and A.C.E. to mean Before Common Era and After Common Era...LOL wtf is the "Common Era" if not refering to the time period around Christ. Also....who said it was "common".


I believe Jesus is God because I don't think he was a liar, I don't think he was just another moral person, and I don't think that Billions of people on the earth are insane, after all if Jesus was insane then so would all these people be too for following him or at least revolving much of their life around him, right?

No, not at all.

The popularity of Christianity has no bearing on whether or not Jesus, the man himself, was crazy or not, or whether he was god or not. The Bible says that, not Jesus directly, and the Bible was written down generations after Jesus died and then was edited over the centuries.


What I've been saying is that your belief that the Shroud of Turin is authentic in order prove the existence of God and Jesus is only based on faith. It's no wonder you won't show your sources because they're most likely from Christian websites, and nothing scientific, but that's fine. I want you to just understand that you're acting on faith, and not on evidence. With faith, evidence doesn't matter, ok?

[PLAYER57832]

Let me draw your attention to two important words in snorri's post.

No, you don't get a pass on this one. In this context whether you add "not" is irrelevant. The belief in flying teapots or lack of it, is not in any way equivalent to belief in God.

If I ever find someone who really and truly does believe in flying teapots or pink elephants or whatever, then they will have justification. You two do not. You are merely being insulting. And you are quite intelligent enough to understand what you do.

You have every right to deny God. I agree it is an intelligent and logical position. However, so is belief in God. Claiming otherwise IS illogical.. and when you do it in that manner, insulting

Adding "not" is very important because it's the point. The dismissal of flying teapots as ridiculous and then saying that the same doesn't go for "God" is not logically sound.

Your entire argument seems to based around an argumentum ad populum. You don't give a reason for God being special, you just say he is special because a lot of people believe he's special. It doesn't work that way, 50 million Elvis fans can be wrong.

The important point... you, in no way believe in flying teapots. Because you do not believe, no such comparison can be valid. It's as though you are saying "I cannot understand football", therefore "its logical that I would not understand bicycle racing, because they are both sports". Someone who knows nothing except the word "sport" might not see a distinction, but there is a great deal.

I say there is a difference because I believe, because I SEE a difference. You, by contrast, simply refuse to even try to entertain that idea. That makes you narrow minded and unscientific, not the reverse. Worse, you effectively claim that I and everyone else who thinks like I do is either flat lying or stupidly decieved. Those are pretty insulting inferences.

And yes, you are quite intelligent enough to understand that.

You refuse to consider that any belief in God is real.

[Neoteny]

There are so many flying points going on in here.

[Snorri1234]

The important point... you, in no way believe in flying teapots. Because you do not believe, no such comparison can be valid.

Why not?

It's as though you are saying "I cannot understand football", therefore "its logical that I would not understand bicycle racing, because they are both sports". Someone who knows nothing except the word "sport" might not see a distinction, but there is a great deal.

You don't give the distinction as pertaining to the concept of belief being true because of the belief.

But it doesn't even matter, because plenty of people also really believe in things you have also dismissed. Even discounting dead religions, there are numerous gods and entitities which a lot of people believe in

You're way too focused on the teapot and ignore Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Hindu pantheon for example.

I say there is a difference because I believe, because I SEE a difference. You, by contrast, simply refuse to even try to entertain that idea. That makes you narrow minded and unscientific, not the reverse. Worse, you effectively claim that I and everyone else who thinks like I do is either flat lying or stupidly decieved. Those are pretty insulting inferences.

And yes, you are quite intelligent enough to understand that.

You refuse to consider that any belief in God is real.

I don't refuse to consider that any belief in God is real. I am simply saying that that doesn't mean God is real. The fact that you feel very strongly about it doesn't make your beliefs suddenly more logically valid.

[PLAYER57832]

The fact that you feel very strongly about it doesn't make your beliefs suddenly more logically valid.

Never said that was the case. That is YOUR assertion, not mine.
I say there is evidence, but it is not the kind of evidence that is easy to demonstrate to other people, never mind on the internet. And, yes, you deny its possible.

I believe in one God. I do not believe in the "general idea of gods" or anything else. Attempts to compare my belief to those others are as nonsensical as trying to say that since swimming is a sport and its in water, soccer must be played in water, too because it is also a sport. The term "god" is used loosely to refer to any type of superior entity (etc.), but that is even more general than the term "sport".

[Snorri1234]

The fact that you feel very strongly about it doesn't make your beliefs suddenly more logically valid.

Never said that was the case. That is YOUR assertion, not mine.

No actually it's your assertion. You claim that because I don't believe in flying teapots my point is stupid, that because a lot of people believe in God(s) that it is less ridiculous than flying teapots, santa or the toothfairy.

You dismiss the argument that belief --> it exist is ridiculous with an argumentum ad populum. You pretend that how much something is believed in is actually relevant to the point. You derive validness from the fact your belief is common, maybe unconciously but you still do. I point out that is bullshit because it is bullshit. Every single time you are engaged in this particular debate you act like your god is more special so any point we make is silly. That because we don't believe in God that we must think this and that. Every point made is twisted to the point where you are either illiterate or deliberately avoiding to answer the question because you don't have an anwser. Much like what you just did here with only responding to one single sentence out of my post.

I say there is evidence, but it is not the kind of evidence that is easy to demonstrate to other people, never mind on the internet. And, yes, you deny its possible.

wat?

What, exactly, do I deny as possible?

I believe in one God. I do not believe in the "general idea of gods" or anything else. Attempts to compare my belief to those others are as nonsensical as trying to say that since swimming is a sport and its in water, soccer must be played in water, too because it is also a sport. The term "god" is used loosely to refer to any type of superior entity (etc.), but that is even more general than the term "sport".

ugh, do you even read my posts or do you just copy and paste the same response all the time?

[Lionz]

A forum topic that could use some Saxi cyber hugs?

[Juan_Bottom]

I believe Jesus is God because I don't think he was a liar, I don't think he was just another moral person, and I don't think that Billions of people on the earth are insane, after all if Jesus was insane then so would all these people be too for following him or at least revolving much of their life around him, right?

The popularity of Christianity has no bearing on whether or not Jesus, the man himself, was crazy or not, or whether he was god or not. The Bible says that, not Jesus directly, and the Bible was written down generations after Jesus died and then was edited over the centuries.

Might I add that the only evidence that a man named Jesus Christ ever existed is just the Bible. Arguably it becomes alike to worshiping Hercules.
I would therefore argue that no one can believe that Jesus is God because of any other reason than the Bible tells them so.

[Lionz]

He actually has a True Name said like Yahushua and the letter J is more recent of a thing than many realize maybe, but you mean evidence in terms of ancient writing for Him in general? Are Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and Lucian of Samosata not all examples of folks not considered Christians by you who wrote of Him less than 100 years after 33 CE? Are He and Mary not even mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud? Whether blasphemously mentioned or not? Any reason why He would be mentioned in it if He never existed? Also, what was written generations later if Matthew and Mark and Luke and John and Peter and James wrote Matthew and Mark and Luke and John and scripture letters?

[Juan_Bottom]

I mean anything written on his account from his own time, instead of 80 years after his alleged death.

His name is never mentioned at all by a dozen or so religious groups in the region who would be interested in his alleged activities, and he isn't even mentioned in known Roman tax documents. His execution wasn't recorded either. I'm telling you, it's like he never existed!

Anyway that was off point,

Dates these historians were born in:

Tactus was born in 56 AD

Josephus - 37 AD

Suetonius - 69 AD

Pliny the Younger - 62 AD

Lucian of Samosata - 125 AD

And 50 years was a respectable life span for people back these days.

[Lionz]

1) Is there a 1st century historian who lived before 33 CE that you can name?

2) What did the religious groups write in general if you refer to religious groups that actually existed?

3) What exists in terms of 1st Century tax documents?

4) Do you have a 1st century source that refers to names of people executed?

5) Why would He be mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud if He's mentioned in it and yet never existed?

[Calidus]

You brought up "observation is proof of God is merely jumping to a conclusion without really looking at other explanations." so i will explain even though if you read the previous posts I already have...I will be a bit more clear.

First of all, you have to believe in what I wrote is true. I am not purposly trying to seem dishonest with what I write. When I wrote my "evidence" it was from a compilation of soources viewed at over 7 hours worth. I am not going to find all of these people and figure out exactly when they themselves studied the Shroud and such. To be very honest with you, I can not say what I wrote is 100% fact, but I can say that I personally believe in it. I never once ever ever ever ever said you HAD or SHOULD or MUST also believe in it. You can if you want though. So again the conlcusion I make is based on that what i believe is true (Just like saying the Bible is true...you can't really prove things in it you can only believe in them).

2.So, if the Shroud of Turin is authentic then it authentic would imply that it was put around Jesus and that what the scriptures say is true (Ironically all of the evidence I have that comes from a science point of view end up showing up in the Biblical way as well). If this is ture, then you have to say that the Shroud of Turin is evidence for Jesus right? Again, IF it is true.... then it would be evidence for Jesus existing..correct?

3. IF Jesus existed than here is the fill in information you have to know that I and may other Christians believe. Basically we believe that Jesus IS God...so therefore based on 1 and 2 then the Shroud of Turin would be evidence for God.

You siad: "There is nothing from that Shroud that suggests that it was wrapped around Jesus. It could've been anyone, and its age has yet to be dated properly. And the scriptures just state that he was wrapped in a cloth; it doesn't state that Jesus was wrapped in the Shroud the Turin, so the Bible can't help you on that one.

So, do you see where you've made your leap of faith?"

Umm... leap of faith... not at all.

First off I will say that even from a scientific view anyone who researches this kind of thing would tell you this could not have been just some random person. Clearly they are able to narrow it down to those who were nailed through some wood (most likely a crusifiction) and then they can narrow it further to somone who was obviously tortured. Not only that, but they can narrow it towards someone under some sort of law that used similar torturing process. You can see on the shroud punture wounds through the head, spear in the side, 120 lashings all over the body. This narrows it down to those whos laws allowed this extreme torture. I will admit I do not study this type of thing so It could be possible that there are a handfull of empires or what have you that might do such things other than the Romans, who I believe to be the most likely canidate. Scientests can say that Romans were experts in the field of torturing. If it was the Romans than the time period around Jesus would be plausable, not definite though I would agree.

Secondly, I have shown you through scientific experiments (that you could try on your own if you want to) that the Carbondating is not a valid way of dating the Shroud of Turin. Also, I could be wrong I will admit, but I think there have been similar linens with the exact same weave pattern that only occur roughly 2000 years ago.

Your last part there... "And the scriptures just state that he was wrapped in a cloth; it doesn't state that Jesus was wrapped in the Shroud the Turin, so the Bible can't help you on that one." is so dumb. I mean sorry, but really thats obvious don't you think. Many things are named after the fact. Otherwise we wouldn't know what Shroud we were refering to right??

Extra: I believe that if Jesus existed then he must be God because I also believe the following: Either he is or is not God.

If he is not God he must be one of 3 things: A liar, just a moral person, or insane.

If he was a liar there has to be a reason for this. Popularity? Nope, at the time Jesus lived he was very unpopular..he only became public the last 3 years of his life. Trying to get attention? Nope, because if you want attention it is because you want to do something to benifit yourself. Dying onthe cross is not very benificial. Lastly, if not for these reasons then it would have to be that he was simply just insane.

I wil get to the insane part in a bit. Lets look at "Just a moral person". First off, Jesus said and showed that he was God. So lying would mean that he's not a moral person. Second, all of the mericles that he showed would, if not from God, be "acts of magic" or things in order to trick and decieve people. This is not a very moral thing to do right?
So again, this would lead to being insane.

I could actually buy this idea, except for one thing. In order to be insane, you have to be viewed that way by the majority of people. Christianity is the largest religious sect in the world. I could be wrong, but I think the figure is around 16% of people in the world who a) didn't respond to the religious question b) are atheist c) are agnostic or d) having no prefrence. There are many people who revolve their calanders around the birth of Jesus and the fact that he was born in year 0. BC is known as before Christ and AD has been known as After Death. This is only half correct. You can't say 1BC was one year before Christ and 1AD was 1 year after death if Jesus lived for 33 years. AD actually stands for "anno domini" which means "in the year of our Lord." So you see, almost everyone in the world uses these notations. Is everyone just really insane. Some people use B.C.E. and A.C.E. to mean Before Common Era and After Common Era...LOL wtf is the "Common Era" if not refering to the time period around Christ. Also....who said it was "common".


I believe Jesus is God because I don't think he was a liar, I don't think he was just another moral person, and I don't think that Billions of people on the earth are insane, after all if Jesus was insane then so would all these people be too for following him or at least revolving much of their life around him, right?

You said "No, not at all.

The popularity of Christianity has no bearing on whether or not Jesus, the man himself, was crazy or not, or whether he was god or not. The Bible says that, not Jesus directly, and the Bible was written down generations after Jesus died and then was edited over the centuries."

Wrong.
If you are a True Christian then you believe the following regardless of what sect of Christianity. You believe in the Father , the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) - the trinity. You believe that Jesus existed, that he died on the cross for our sins and that Jesus says he is God. An example of being God would be one passage from the Bible (can't remember the exact verse) that describes a women being brought to Jesus so the Jesus would have the Jewish law prevail based on what God said to Moses in the Old Testament. The crowd told Jesus to throw stones at the women, because that was the law. Jesus said "May those without sin throw the first stone" Everyone walked away and then he basically told the lady she was forgiven and didn't throw a stone at her. This clearly shows that Jesus=God based on what's in the Bible, the very same book all Christians follow. There are also many other stories that prove this point, maybe you should read them?

You said "What I've been saying is that your belief that the Shroud of Turin is authentic in order prove the existence of God and Jesus is only based on faith. It's no wonder you won't show your sources because they're most likely from Christian websites, and nothing scientific, but that's fine. I want you to just understand that you're acting on faith, and not on evidence. With faith, evidence doesn't matter, ok?

"

I don't know exactly what to say about that, it's actually very very frustrating that you think that way. You're basically saying then, that no matter what God does, such as turn water into wine, even if I had a picture of some sort to post on here...you would just deny it and say that it is just faith and evidence for God.

So.... that would mean that all the posts on here...according to your standards...would have to be basically very biased. They all come from the idea that "Evidence" is only a scientific term, rather than a term in general to describe a sort of 'leaning towards this or that' type feel. I mean honestly, no one could even post this "only scientific evidence" on this forum and still be in favor of God. The reason is simply that all types of religion would go out the window if there were, and/or science has not gone far enough (although I believe we are getting very close - as Stephen Hawking said himself) to show the final answer to how our Universe began.

SO yeah I might be acting on faith, but what I'm doing is saying that ...IF the shroud is authentic, THEN Jesus existed and THEN GOD exists. So what I did was give some support with different things that Scientists have found on the Shroud of Turin to - I will use my phrase earlier ... " 'leaning towards this or that' type feel " in favor of Evidence for God.

If you really want to throw this out of the post, I agree it should be done if and only if "evidence" is used in only a science matter, then go ahead fine.

Then as the human race...that we can ALL 100% agree on there is NO evidence (again, in science terms only) that can be shown for God that people will say...it is 100% clear and is as simple as the fact that A Baseball is used in the game of Baseball.

So..... this Title would be a contridiction basically or at least include results that are very very biased.

Does that satisfy you? Or can we be a bit more fair and converse with both parties regardless of opinion?

Yeah?

So using this new term of evidence that obviously I brought totaly out of left field for you, I think it's safe to say that IF the examples about the Shroud of Turin that I have given are true, THEN there is evidence for God.

I will leave it up to You and everyone to decide if what I have shown is true or false, because even if I did give you sources... there will always be someone who says "not good enough for me" Even in todays modern world there are still quite a few people who disagree with our most brightest people such as Stephen Hawking mentioned above.

Faith is not something just for religion it is something you have to use here... you either will or wont TRUST what someone says about something not in your field of expertise regarless of the sources.

[Juan_Bottom]

2) What did the religious groups write in general if you refer to religious groups that actually existed?

That's a loaded question. And really, its a non-consequence. Just knowing that nobody bothered to write down his name or what he was doing is a strong indicator of what I'm saying. That's all I really need anyone to focus on.


The Romans themselves were meticulous when it came to documentation, and that is well known. However, we haven't learned a whole lot since the 18th century. Errr... I think I have that century correct,...
Point is we hit a wall at one point because they were so meticulous and because they had a few fires along the way.

3) What exists in terms of 1st Century Roman tax documents?

4) Do you have a 1st century source that refers to names of people executed?

Not bookmarked on the internet. The Romans had a reputation of destroying all tax records for taxes that failed. But most didn't fail and what they left was naturally an illuminating view into Roman law and politics in governing. Especially in the provinces.

5) Why would He be mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud if He's mentioned in it and yet never existed?

You have to clarify for me here, so I can be sure we're talking about the same thing.
I think that you're talking about the execution of Yeshu the Nazerene? I've heard there are other references in the Talmud... ? & If you've got anything on that I would love to check it out.
But the Talmud gets the facts wrong about the Execution of Yeshu if he was supposed to be Jesus. It is wrong about who killed him. The dates are also incorrect by about 100 years. It's a strikingly similar story, but I believe Bible/Jewish Scholars reject that it is the same man.

The Babylonian Talmud is also compiled/written many years after Jesus's alleged death. The Jerusalem or Jewish (can't remember the correct name and cant be bothered to google now) predates the Babylonian one by hundreds of years. And I don't believe it contains anything like this.

Wow, I just broke spell-check.