Evidence for the Bible / God [W536; 634]

[grip]

I don't believe any gods exist, how can I define one? I can only see if the definition given by those who claim they are real are legitimate. Clearly, you don't get the burden of proof, which is hardly surprising.

So go ahead, either define your god and present evidence or stop claiming it's real. The burden is all on you.

This is a paradox that you can't win. Once you define a god, that has no historical definition of substance, you're using your imagination. The very definition of an invisible, energy being makes evidence beyond the created impossible, except for thought of which you possess. Therefore you are the only viable evidence of said living consciousness, invisible energy or God.

 

[Fearandloathing]

YOU are sitting here making the statement "THERE IS NO GOD". The burden is on you. Completely. Disprove it. You cant. You don't know. All you can say is you don't think there is a god.

It is impossible to prove a negative, but your point has merit.

Atheists reject the existence of God without knowing what or who God is. To them God IS a myth, because they are trapped in the mythological interpretation of certain Biblical quotes, usually taken out of context. they make fun of such tales as Jonah and the whale because they do not understand it is a metaphor, the single most effective means of communication in that age. They doubt because they think it is impossible for a wall of water to be formed on the Jordan River, without the geological knowledge that that phenomena occurs every few hundred years, the last in 1933.

They read a sentence and take its literal meaning, without realizing that phrase is actually a quote, they do not know that the Psalms are poetic and have many meanings.

It would be easy to deny the existence of snow if you lived in the Caribbean 100 years ago.....

 

[AlbqOwl]

I don't believe any gods exist, how can I define one? I can only see if the definition given by those who claim they are real are legitimate. Clearly, you don't get the burden of proof, which is hardly surprising.

So go ahead, either define your god and present evidence or stop claiming it's real. The burden is all on you.

The point they are making is that if you will not describe the criteria that would satisfy you that a god or gods have and/or do exist, how can we satisfy your request that we prove that a god or gods did and/or do exist? How can we know what evidence will be needed unless we know what criteria by which you judge what is a god?

It is like asking somebody to prove love if you cannot define what that is.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

This post of yours is nothing but the usual, hysterical nonsense. This thread is full of evidences for Christ, God, and the Bible. Just slapping a bunch of nonsensical gibberish against the wall to see what sticks isn't working for you.

We have multiple, independent, historical Biblical and non-biblical accounts and references to Jesus and several of his disciples. All you have is denial.

Logicman and RGacky3: "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible."

There isnt a debate to be had with religious dogma, (lies).

 

[Logicman]

Logicman and RGacky3: "The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible."

There isnt a debate to be had with religious dogma, (lies).

What would you know?

The fulfilled Messianic prophecies are the signature of God. Sorry you missed it.

 

[Summerwind]

OK, let's start with the fact a Jesus changed the world and became a household name.

No he didn't. Stories gathered together century later changed the world and created a household name. There is no evidence that a unique Jesus lived. The Jesus in the NT could just as easily be a conglomeration of all the shaman and "magicmen" of the local lore which apparently was spoken for, iic, over a century before someone decided to use them to create a wealth base off the ignorance of fools. It's no more reliable than the tales of Greek mythology, the legends in Native American mythology, or the beliefs of Pagans..

 

[blarg]

YOU are sitting here making the statement "THERE IS NO GOD". The burden is on you. Completely. Disprove it. You cant. You don't know. All you can say is you don't think there is a god.

no one said their is no god in the post you quoted there was no burden of proof on him in that post

 

[blarg]

This is a paradox that you can't win. Once you define a god, that has no historical definition of substance, you're using your imagination. The very definition of an invisible, energy being makes evidence beyond the created impossible, except for thought of which you possess. Therefore you are the only viable evidence of said living consciousness, invisible energy or God.

just go with your definition for the one or ones you believe in

 

[blarg]

It is impossible to prove a negative, but your point has merit.

Atheists reject the existence of God without knowing what or who God is. To them God IS a myth, because they are trapped in the mythological interpretation of certain Biblical quotes, usually taken out of context. they make fun of such tales as Jonah and the whale because they do not understand it is a metaphor, the single most effective means of communication in that age. They doubt because they think it is impossible for a wall of water to be formed on the Jordan River, without the geological knowledge that that phenomena occurs every few hundred years, the last in 1933.

They read a sentence and take its literal meaning, without realizing that phrase is actually a quote, they do not know that the Psalms are poetic and have many meanings.

It would be easy to deny the existence of snow if you lived in the Caribbean 100 years ago.....

ok ill go with you on that so what do you have to support that god existing?

 

[blarg]

The point they are making is that if you will not describe the criteria that would satisfy you that a god or gods have and/or do exist, how can we satisfy your request that we prove that a god or gods did and/or do exist? How can we know what evidence will be needed unless we know what criteria by which you judge what is a god?

It is like asking somebody to prove love if you cannot define what that is.

just give your own definition and prove that one

 

[blarg]

What would you know?

The fulfilled Messianic prophecies are the signature of God. Sorry you missed it.

prove a messiah came

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Picking and choosing what can and cannot be used at evidence is a pretty ****ty arguement. Back then the hand written accounts of events were largely practiced and most of what we widely consider truth from history has come from these accounts. Now I'm not going to read 180 pages worth of text but it seems to me you have a problem with your own set of beliefs. You do not believe in the writings of that book, or so you say, but rather than be content with your own beliefs you are choosing to challenge others to make yourself feel good about your choice. It seems as though you simply are doubting yourself and seeking forums to alleviate that. Truth is you dont know if God or Jesus or anyone else existed or what they may or may not have done or been able to do.

The bible makes a set of claims. Therefore the bible cannot be evidence of those claims. I would suggest that you learn something about logic.

You should also learn what a debate forum is for. This forum certainly isnt for your sad ass attempt at attacking me instead of addressing the subject at hand.

BTW I do know that someone that is claimed to exist does not exist unless the person(s) making the claim of the someones existence has real evidence for their claim. The New Testament makes a specific claim about the existence of a group of people and a god (or three depending who you are talking too). There is no vague god in the new testament, the description is specific. WHich makes the claim specific enough that logic demands evidence. So when one asks if there is sufficient evidence to support the claims that bible makes then logic dictates that the answer is no.

Now if you could or anyone could show some real evidence to back the claims made it the bible I would change tune.

BTW I am very content with my beliefs, I have no doubts like you are trying to claim. Where you got such a asinine I could only guess, since you are not the first to try and parrot such a lame ass argument. I bet you believed that entire sermon and thought that it would work in the real world and everyone would bow down to your doubting Thomas story?

 

[grip]

just go with your definition for the one or ones you believe in

If God is eternal with no beginning or end, infinite in substance with no center or edges, then this is essentially an unobservable phenomenon or beyond comprehension. The way to be aware of a God is from direct revelation or by blind faith, making yourself the only ready evidence.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

What would you know?

The fulfilled Messianic prophecies are the signature of God. Sorry you missed it.

Thanx for giving a good example of religious dogma. And around and around you go!

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

If God is eternal with no beginning or end, infinite in substance with no center or edges, then this is essentially an unobservable phenomenon or beyond comprehension. The way to be aware of a God is from direct revelation or by blind faith, making yourself the only ready evidence.

Thats a mighty big if...

 

[grip]

Thats a mighty big if...

Even if God revealed his true nature too me, unless he was wiling to do the same for others, I couldn't prove what I know.

I think to to become aware of the unlimited in it's entirety, you'd have to be become a part of it's nature.

 

[AlbqOwl]

just give your own definition and prove that one

I'm not the one demanding proof. But is this your way of saying you don't have a clue what a 'god' is? Or how to define one? But you reject any claim any of us might have that we have experienced God and therefore know he exists? Please give your best argument for how you know we have not experienced what we claim to have experienced.

 

[Cephus]

You are just making claims and demanding other people prove theirs but you dont feel the need to prove your own claim? Why the double standard? If you cant back up why are you making the claim?

Please produce any claim that I've made. I'm responding to grip who made a claim, yet now refuses to back it up or even define his own terms. Learn to read.

 

[Cephus]

YOU are sitting here making the statement "THERE IS NO GOD". The burden is on you. Completely. Disprove it. You cant. You don't know. All you can say is you don't think there is a god.

Again, QUOTE where I've said that. Let me know when you can do that. Otherwise, you're pulling it straight out of your ass.

 

[Cephus]

This is a paradox that you can't win. Once you define a god, that has no historical definition of substance, you're using your imagination. The very definition of an invisible, energy being makes evidence beyond the created impossible, except for thought of which you possess. Therefore you are the only viable evidence of said living consciousness, invisible energy or God.

It's not my fault that's what you apparently believe. I can't know for sure because you refuse to define what you believe, but it certainly seems that way to me. If you're going to define your god as something invisible that cannot be detected, I have to ask, why in the world would you believe in such a thing? It's ridiculous! It's like someone saying there are invisible fairies! Nobody in their right mind would believe that, yet you think it's great that you believe in an invisible god that you have no evidence and no reason to think is actually real.

I know logic and reason isn't your thing, clearly, but maybe someone else out there might have a clue. You cannot show that your god exists, therefore nothing is evidence of your god's existence, any more than it's evidence of the existence of leprechauns. You can't just make a random assertion, backed up by no evidence, with no demonstrable correlation between the two, and pretend you've done anything but made a fool of yourself. Read up on some basic logic, you're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Cephus]

The point they are making is that if you will not describe the criteria that would satisfy you that a god or gods have and/or do exist, how can we satisfy your request that we prove that a god or gods did and/or do exist? How can we know what evidence will be needed unless we know what criteria by which you judge what is a god?

It is like asking somebody to prove love if you cannot define what that is.

It doesn't matter. If they cannot define their own gods, which clearly they cannot, if they cannot produce any objective evidence that these things actually exist and especially if they cannot show that they've ever rationally thought about these things because clearly they have not, what difference does it make what will convince me? Nobody asked what will convince me. They asked me to define their gods for them. I'm not making the claim. It's not my job. And yes, if you claimed that love existed, then I'd ask you to both define what you think love is and how you can prove it. The burden of proof is *ALWAYS* on the positive claimant. Always.

 

[grip]

It's not my fault that's what you apparently believe. I can't know for sure because you refuse to define what you believe, but it certainly seems that way to me. If you're going to define your god as something invisible that cannot be detected, I have to ask, why in the world would you believe in such a thing? It's ridiculous! It's like someone saying there are invisible fairies! Nobody in their right mind would believe that, yet you think it's great that you believe in an invisible god that you have no evidence and no reason to think is actually real.

I know logic and reason isn't your thing, clearly, but maybe someone else out there might have a clue. You cannot show that your god exists, therefore nothing is evidence of your god's existence, any more than it's evidence of the existence of leprechauns. You can't just make a random assertion, backed up by no evidence, with no demonstrable correlation between the two, and pretend you've done anything but made a fool of yourself. Read up on some basic logic, you're just embarrassing yourself.

What would you accept as evidence quoted in a forum?

 

[Cephus]

OK, let's start with the fact a Jesus changed the world and became a household name.

The problem is that's not true. Jesus did nothing of the sort, in fact you can't even prove that Jesus ever existed. *BELIEF* in Jesus is what changed at least some parts of the world, just as *BELIEF* in Allah changed others and *BELIEF* in Krishna changed still other parts. Jesus didn't do jack squat. In fact, the following is absolutely, demonstrably true.



And a household name? Elvis was a household name. Is Elvis God? :roll:

 

[Cephus]

What would you accept as evidence quoted in a forum?

Anything objective and demonstrable. Do you have anything? Anything at all?

 

[grip]

Anything objective and demonstrable. Do you have anything? Anything at all?

That's my whole point is that you wouldn't accept anything grammatically as evidence, only a direct manifestation of supernatural interaction of which nobody can instigate but the source.

You set this line of questioning up as an impossibility to prove, so you can call it evidence of something.