What proof do you have of God?

[tempter]

Please, if you know you can't debate well or have not looked into philosophy much, I ask that you do not post, no offense.

Like beauty, "proof" is in 'the eye of the beholder'. What one person sees as proof may or may not be truly proof. After all, one can believe in anything they want no matter what the facts (or lack of facts) indicate.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It does kind of hurt to apologize though it is impossible to say where. I always thought it was strange how we feel a literal resistance to apologizing.

I'm glad you recognize that resistance and especially that you're able to overcome it. I think it has to do with our need to be right. When we apologize, it's an admission that we are fallible. That can scare us.

That would be impossible because we haven't debated anything beyond me making a factual point and you dismissing it with a joke.

I think that if you ever hope to debate with me, you'll have to relax a little. When we obsess over jab, jab, jabbing the other guy, it usually means there's something amiss within ourselves. We can't be angry at someone and still hope to discuss life with that person in open good faith. It doesn't work. We have built a wall.

My competence in this area enables me to see your incompetence in it.

You always brighten my day. I wish you could see some of your messages from my perspective.

No you don't. It is just plain weird to claim to, and even if true you could not possibly know it.

So Jesus was weird to claim that he knew things about God? None of the Biblical prophets could have possibly known true things about God?

Or is it that your prophets seem normal and natural, but the other guy's prophets seem weird and false?

Do you know the term 'special pleading'?

Conclusion: doesn't know what he is talking about, and what's worse doesn't want to, and what’s even worse suggests no one else does. That is the most fitting description possible.

That's actually a pretty good description. I don't know anything. I don't want to know anything. And I'm sure that no one knows anything. So God is happy with you today. You have seen clearly into His Great Truth.

That is a diabolical God not to mention a false one.

Nah. All gods except mine are diabolical and false. But my God is a very fine God indeed.

I usually can put someone in a category after a few posts.

I believe you. But you must know that God hates those who categorize others. It's a serious pet peeve for Him. Not so bad as murder, but right near the top of the Thought-Sins List.

I think you have created a whole new category of dysfunction. Usually the dysfunction is incidental to the category but I think in your case it is the goal of your category.

Depends on what 'dysfuntion' means to you. If it means 'the ability to sow uncertainty,' then I am indeed uniquely dysfuntional.

In your religion Satan sows doubt. In my religion, God takes that job. He considers it too important to leave to a mere underling.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Like beauty, "proof" is in 'the eye of the beholder'. What one person sees as proof may or may not be truly proof. After all, one can believe in anything they want no matter what the facts (or lack of facts) indicate.

Hi, Tempter. I think that the word 'prove' deceives us. Many people seem to believe that when a thing is proven, it's somehow 'true' in a sense beyond mere human opinion.

But I can't imagine how that would work. How can anything be claimed as true beyond human opinion? So long as one person thinks God isn't true, then God isn't true beyond human opinion.

So I prefer to think of 'proving' something as 'convincing another individual human mind' of that thing. Sometimes I wish we could ban the words 'prove' and 'know' from the language -- or at least put them on probation for awhile.

 

[1robin]

I'm glad you recognize that resistance and especially that you're able to overcome it. I think it has to do with our need to be right. When we apologize, it's an admission that we are fallible. That can scare us.

I am sure that there is some truth to that but I personally have no problem admitting I have more problems that a math book, I even have no problem with the concept of aplogozing. However I detect a resitance to actuually doing it that is very interesting.

So Jesus was weird to claim that he knew things about God? None of the Biblical prophets could have possibly known true things about God?

Nope, the fact that Jesus over and over again verified his claims to divinity or at least access to divinity made his claims the most profound in human history. You lack of any credability along those lines make your just another guy saying weird things.

Or is it that your prophets seem normal and natural, but the other guy's prophets seem weird and false?

The same principle above applies equally well here.

Do you know the term 'special pleading'?

I recognise the term and it's often missuse.

That's actually a pretty good description. I don't know anything. I don't want to know anything. And I'm sure that no one knows anything. So God is happy with you today. You have seen clearly into His Great Truth.

I would reject that God even if he existed. I might even punch him if possible.

Nah. All gods except mine are diabolical and false. But my God is a very fine God indeed.

If the description above is accurate, then it is not possible for a God to be less meaningfull.

I believe you. But you must know that God hates those who categorize others. It's a serious pet peeve for Him. Not so bad as murder, but right near the top of the Thought-Sins List.

You God does not care one way or the other, nor know one way or the other. My God called the priests a brood of vipers. So fail twice.

Depends on what 'dysfuntion' means to you. If it means 'the ability to sow uncertainty,' then I am indeed uniquely dysfuntional.

I am certain you are uncertain about what value there is in being uncertain.

In your religion Satan sows doubt. In my religion, God takes that job. He considers it too important to leave to a mere underling.

So your religions God is Satan. The most diabolical creature in human history. The father of lies and the spreader of hate and misery. That explains a lot.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nope, the fact that Jesus over and over again verified his claims to divinity or at least access to divinity made his claims the most profound in human history. You lack of any credability along those lines make your just another guy saying weird things.

I have verified all my claims. But Jesus verified none of his claims. So Jesus lacks any credibility. He's just another guy saying weird things. (Actually Jesus pretended that he could do magic tricks -- up to and including rising from the dead -- so of course that would knock him right out of any prophet contest. He wouldn't make the quarter finals.)

By the way, I'll be happy to lay off of your prophet any time you decide to lay off of mine.

I would reject that God even if he existed.

Of course you would, just as I would reject your God even if He existed.

So your religions God is Satan. The most diabolical creature in human history. The father of lies and the spreader of hate and misery. That explains a lot.

My God makes me snicker at the notion of invisible magical creatures who lurk in the night. The bogeyman and Satan are already going the way of trolls under the bridge, ghosts bumping in the night, and bickering gods who inhabit Mount Olympus.

I'm sorry. I don't want to watch you sink into the abyss, but I'm afraid I see you as having boarded an unseaworthy rustbucket.

There is salvation, though. That's the good news. All you need do is stop being angry at those who oppose you and begin answering simple questions with an objective and sincere heart. One day you'll turn around and realize that your ship has somehow transformed itself into a stout vessel indeed.

 

[atDissenter]

This seems like a new and interesting topic.

Are you wondering if there is proof that God exists? Because that's fairly easy. This thread is proof that God exists. Otherwise, it would be impossible to talk about it. Then again, you are probably looking for something more than that, eh?

Your argument seems to be: "I think therefore I am." In other words, believers think there's a god, therefore, a god must exist. Of course the logical step beyond "cogito ergo sum," is that there must be Santa Claus because there's some person out there that thinks the guy is real.

 

[McBell]

One wonders when they are going to break out the rulers and start measuring their gods penises...

 

[tempter]

Hi, Tempter. I think that the word 'prove' deceives us. Many people seem to believe that when a thing is proven, it's somehow 'true' in a sense beyond mere human opinion.

But I can't imagine how that would work. How can anything be claimed as true beyond human opinion? So long as one person thinks God isn't true, then God isn't true beyond human opinion.

So I prefer to think of 'proving' something as 'convincing another individual human mind' of that thing. Sometimes I wish we could ban the words 'prove' and 'know' from the language -- or at least put them on probation for awhile.

Banning such words would indicate a lack of intelligence and dependence on belief and not fact.
Some may relish such a life. I, for one, won't.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Banning such words would indicate a lack of intelligence and dependence on belief and not fact.
Some may relish such a life. I, for one, won't.

Joke. It's impossible to ban words in western civilization, although the US has done a pretty fair job of it with 'the N-word.'

(Oh, and 'fact' is another word which decieves us. We should nuke it, I think.)

 

[skywrath32]

Please, if you know you can't debate well or have not looked into philosophy much, I ask that you do not post, no offense.

I cant give you a solid proof nor you can say that God doesnt really exist.

But theres one thing that science cant explain, Free Will.
You, Me and Everyone has a free will even animals does. Now probably you will ask me, whats the connection of free will to God? Well God himself proclaimed that there is freedom to choose and it was his reason why he choosed to create us and not show himself. In Science, Everything can be predicted The movement of the stars, The next eclipse, The next cosmic alignment but how about Free Will? Can you predict it? Nope. Scientist will try and try to create a formula to predict someone's next action but believe me. Its impossible. Free Will is what makes this world beautiful. Free Will is what makes you an atheist or A believer. Free Will is what makes life exciting.

 

[tempter]

Joke. It's impossible to ban words in western civilization, although the US has done a pretty fair job of it with 'the N-word.'

(Oh, and 'fact' is another word which decieves us. We should nuke it, I think.)

Seems it deceives only those who want to be deceived...?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Seems it deceives only those who want to be deceived...?

I can't agree with that. I think that language is so deep within us that most of us can't see it as apart from us. It's very hard to get people to examine the meanings of 'know' and 'fact' and 'prove'.

So I think language fools many of us even without our knowledge that it's happening.

 

[tempter]

I can't agree with that. I think that language is so deep within us that most of us can't see it as apart from us. It's very hard to get people to examine the meanings of 'know' and 'fact' and 'prove'.

So I think language fools many of us even without our knowledge that it's happening.

For some it may. I pity those people

 

[Thief]

I can't agree with that. I think that language is so deep within us that most of us can't see it as apart from us. It's very hard to get people to examine the meanings of 'know' and 'fact' and 'prove'.

So I think language fools many of us even without our knowledge that it's happening.

More true than you have stated.

I've seen a documentary about language....speech making in particular.

Turns out, the technique of speech making is an acquired skill.
If properly applied, you can convince your fellowman...anything.
ANYTHING!

 

[Syrokal]

None

Why do you ask?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For some it may. I pity those people

Hey, some of my best friends are confused like that but I still love them.

 

[1robin]

I have verified all my claims. But Jesus verified none of his claims. So Jesus lacks any credibility. He's just another guy saying weird things. (Actually Jesus pretended that he could do magic tricks -- up to and including rising from the dead -- so of course that would knock him right out of any prophet contest. He wouldn't make the quarter finals.)

You just can't seriously evaluate anything can you? It is like when you are hit with actual historical claims and theology you get uncomfortable and then retreat to making silly comments instead of actually discussing the claims. There is more evidence for what Jesus did than for any other individual in ancient history. When you come back from the dead then you might have some credibility. When you are believed in as divine 2000 years after you lived by 1/3 of the humans on Earth then you can talk. No comical equivocations can extricate you from this dissparity in credability.

By the way, I'll be happy to lay off of your prophet any time you decide to lay off of mine.

I do not care if you intelligently scrutinize Jesus. However making jokes and being flippant about the most cherished person in human history is just a waste of every ones time. You do not have a prophet and so I have never addressed him. The issue deserves more competent and sincere debate than what you provide.

Of course you would, just as I would reject your God even if He existed.

He does and you have.

My God makes me snicker at the notion of invisible magical creatures who lurk in the night. The bogeyman and Satan are already going the way of trolls under the bridge, ghosts bumping in the night, and bickering gods who inhabit Mount Olympus.

The God you have described is the most comical and absurd of all false God concepts. That is why no one believes in him and billions believe in mine. I have yet to see you can actually intelligently debate these issues. If you can't do so soon I will end this long sad tale of useless triviality.

I'm sorry. I don't want to watch you sink into the abyss, but I'm afraid I see you as having boarded an unseaworthy rustbucket.

This makes as little sense and is as irrelevant as everything else you have posted. Get it in gear if you wish to discuss the actual issues.

There is salvation, though. That's the good news. All you need do is stop being angry at those who oppose you and begin answering simple questions with an objective and sincere heart. One day you'll turn around and realize that your ship has somehow transformed itself into a stout vessel indeed.

What a load of garbage. I do not think even boredom will compel me to continue this much longer. If you cannot carry on a competent debate then I am going to terminate this. I have had it with the thought fragments, silly supposed paradoxes, the diversions to bad humor, and the complete lack of scholarship. Either post a challenging issue oriented counter claim or I am done.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is more evidence for what Jesus did than for any other individual in ancient history.

That's a fine opinion but I don't share it. I've thought too deeply about historical truth.

As for 'what Jesus did', I have no idea what you mean. I don't even believe that the founder of Christianity lived in first-century Judea, much less do I believe that he did miracles as described in the gospel stories.

When you come back from the dead then you might have some credibility. When you are believed in as divine 2000 years after you lived by 1/3 of the humans on Earth then you can talk. No comical equivocations can extricate you from this dissparity in credability.

That's another fine personal opinion. Everyone has opinions.

For myself, I believe that any ancient figure who is claimed to have done magic is necessarily suspect. It means he lived so long ago that there's been plenty of time to tell tall tales about him without fear of being exposed by actual historical evidence. It's true that primitive folk and political toadies heaped magical powers on the caesars and other political leaders, but in those cases we often have physical evidence, a reasonable explanation for the magic claims, and no theological reasons for the leaders to have been concocted. Of course, that doesn't mean that Alexander the Great was absolutely and positively 'a real man.' It just means we have better evidence for Alexander than for Jesus.

So we seem to see things differently.

I do not care if you intelligently scrutinize Jesus. However making jokes and being flippant about the most cherished person in human history is just a waste of every ones time. You do not have a prophet and so I have never addressed him.

Imagine if we all interacted with each other as gently as we might address our own favorite prophet. Would you speak to Jesus as you speak to me?

How do you think Jesus would behave if he were in this place? More like me... or like you?

I don't think Jesus would come here at all, but if he did, I just can't imagine him insulting the other debaters. I think of him as a gentle and spiritual man -- at least as he is portrayed in the gospels. I think he'd more likely address the other debaters with careful courtesy and respect rather than raw insult.

Just my WWJD opinion, of course.

The God you have described is the most comical and absurd of all false God concepts.

Jesus didn't teach you to speak to others that way. I'm sure he didn't.

What a load of garbage. I do not think even boredom will compel me to continue this much longer. If you cannot carry on a competent debate then I am going to terminate this.

Goodbye, old friend. As you sit in your garden and muse on the RF Wars, I hope you'll think of me in a special way.

I'm the guy who proved the impossiblity of proving God, after all. That's a big lesson.

 

[Syrokal]

YThere is more evidence for what Jesus did than for any other individual in ancient history.

This is a worrying claim, and unfortunately an incorrect one.

The evidence for Jesus's existence is very small, essentially limited to a few doctered commentary a century or so after he supposedly did his thing.
Since due to the nature of the Gospels and the NT it cannot be counted as firm evidence any more than you would accept the existence of the Puranas and Vedas as verification that Vishu and his Incarnations were all 100% real and factual.

Mohammed for example is far more verifiable , in his existance and actions.(though ill admit he lives on the very prescipice of what we consider Aincient history

 

[1robin]

This is a worrying claim, and unfortunately an incorrect one.

The evidence for Jesus's existence is very small, essentially limited to a few doctered commentary a century or so after he supposedly did his thing.
Since due to the nature of the Gospels and the NT it cannot be counted as firm evidence any more than you would accept the existence of the Puranas and Vedas as verification that Vishu and his Incarnations were all 100% real and factual.

Mohammed for example is far more verifiable , in his existance and actions.(though ill admit he lives on the very prescipice of what we consider Aincient history

The Bible is by far the most attested work in ancient history. No other work of that time is even close to as reliably transmitted.

Author/ Book
Date Written
Earliest Copies
Time Gap
No. of Copies
Percent Accuracy
Homer, Iliad
800 b.c
c. 400 B.C.
c. 400 yrs
643
95
Herodotus History
480-425 b.c.
c. a.d. 900
c. 1,350 yrs
8
?
Thucydides, History
460-400 b.c.
c. a.d. 900
c. 1,300 yrs
8
?
Plato
400 b.c.
c. a.d. 900
c. 1,300 yrs
7
?
Caesar, Gallic Wars
100-44 b.c.
c. a.d. 900
c. 1,000 yrs
10
?
Livy, Historyof Rome
59 b.c. - a.d. 17
4th cent.(partial)

mostly 10th cent.
c. 400 yrs

c. 1,000 yrs
1 partial
19 copies
?
Tacitus, Annals
a.d. 100
c. a.d. 1100
c. 1,000 yrs
20
?
Pliny Secundus, Natural History
a.d. 61-113

c. 850
c. 750 yrs
7
?

New Testament
a.d. 50-100
c. 114 (fragment)
c. 200 (books)
c. 250 (most of N.T.)
c. 325 (complete N.T.)
±50 yrs
100 yrs
150 yrs

225 yrs
5366
99+

As can be clearly seen nothing even comes close. Being that Jesus is the primary character of this most attested work then he is obviously the most attested as well. He or his earliest followers are mentioned by at least 20 extra Biblical authors. The testimony concerning him is said be both Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lynhurst (two of if not the greatest experts on evidence in human history) to meet every standard of modern law and the historical method.

The Quran is not considered a work of antiquity however even if it was it has far more problems than the Bible anyway. Not to mention that even if the Quran accurately describes Muhammad there is little remarkable (in a good way) about him. He was extremely violent, the circumstances that surround his revelations are perfectly demonic in description, he included gnostic heretical texts in the Quran, he tortured captives, was arguably a pedophile, and never performed a miracle. Some prophet. Continued below: