Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What kind of evidence would prove the existence of an invisible, supernatural deity, much less the supernatural in general? Isn't the supernatural defined as that which is outside or beyond nature (outside of our senses: hearing, seeing, tasting, touching, etc).? How does one perceive, much less document what they can't see, hear, taste, touch? For example, you may have "historical evidence" that a man named jesus existed, but this is not evidence that he is god. You may have evidence that he died and then was missing from his tomb, but that is not evidence that he was magically "resurrected." You may have evidence of events that are not as yet explainable and who some may interpret and claim to be the work of god, but it is not the same thing as being evidence of god.
Anyway, why would just the fact that a book has historical facts or has stories which are geographically accurate for instance, make any difference as to whether one believes a supernatural god exists? I can read Gone with the Wind, and it may be accurate with many of the historical events and places, but that does not mean Scarlet existed in real life. Likewise, I can read a biography about Joseph Smith which gives us accurate information about his life, but it does not prove anything about him being a "prophet" or having visions, just because the rest of the book is accurate. I do not believe the supernatural claims in the bible. The rest of the information could be 100% accurate, but would be just another story without the supernatural claims. Prove some (or even one of those), and I might be convinced to believe.
Its a waste of time to try to prove miracles, which is why I don't list them in my evidence. And if you cannot see the evidence of biblical proofs, then disguard the bible, one does not need it to prove God to themselves. I mean it would be helpful if you could see it, but there is not just " One Proof." So you can disguard any I list, and deal only with those you can see.
I think one can " Taste God", or sense him with their consciousness, 80- 90% of humans do. Taste, or " Sense him." Our consciousness is our inward radar, we can detect God there. The more you learn to do it, the better and more keen you get at it. We can learn to " See" the evidence of God, but one has to learn to even do that, we are not born with such ability. I can " See God" on this board. The stimulating debate over him, the personal witnesses about him, the sheer hatred for him, the awesome Love for him; all stimulated by him. The unbelief in him. The many interpitations of him. I mean I can see it, see God manipulating human consciousness, without the human even knowing it.
I can hear God , every morning as the birds sing their song. When my mom tells me repeatly that she Loves me. When I am about to do wrong, and my conscious bothers me about it. I can hear him when babys laugh, when thousands die in a storm, I can hear him. One just has to learn to hear him for themselves, its a spiritual thing.
I cannot touch God, perhaps impossible for a human to do anyway. And one more thing; I hold absolutely no intrest in convincing God exist to you. You have to do that for yourself.
Well numbers and social acceptance is highly in favor of God being real. Just a few recent polls reveals this, which the percentages reflecting numbers of people who believe in God;
The Tusla World poll;- 92%.
The Yahoo poll;- 80%.
The Fox News poll;- 90%.
And most polls reflect simular numerics. But I think a personal search for God being real or not, shouldnot depend on polls, but on personal evidence that you can see, reason out, understand and believe. I mean polls have their place, its encouraging that the polls are so high, but personal conviction shouldnot rely on them. Not in my view.
The experience of God, should be " Personal", it should hit home! And it has with so many, thus, " Personal Experience" should be considered an evidence of God, it SHOULD start There! Even with Atheism, or anythingelse, the conviction should be personal, something " In You."
And I have NEVER, in my life, seen a dynamic get into so many peoples personal lives and belief, like God has. No other reality has shook humankind like this one. None that I am aware of. Its truly amazing, in my view. Its multiracial, crossculture, international, includes both genders, all ages, and it is scholastic.
Really, I have never seen anything like it, to even compare it to.
Peace.
Numbers and social acceptance just point towards the cultural aspect of religion/belief. Had you been born in another time and place, you may well have been tearing the hearts out of still living people for "offerings", satisfied that you had proven to yourself that particular god was real. Most of those around you probably would have been believers as well.
Numbers and social acceptance just point towards the cultural aspect of religion/belief. Had you been born in another time and place, you may well have been tearing the hearts out of still living people for "offerings", satisfied that you had proven to yourself that particular god was real. Most of those around you probably would have been believers as well.
Well I agree, numbers and social acceptance are miniscule in a real search for comprehending if God exist, I maintain it must be mostly a personal search, that convinces self, preferably a search that involves only you and nonelse. I compare it to " Romance." I don't need anyones help in finding a woman, I can do that all by myself. I need to do it alone.
And speaking of Romance, that is another evidence of God in my view. Romance didnot come from evolution, it didnot come from anything physical, like water and rocks or chemicals. So where did it come from? I believe it came from God, who wanted his creations to mate. There is no scientific evidence for Romance that I accept as legit. It is NOT a physical thing, it is purely spiritual. Now I am not talking about " Lust", or the drive to mate physically, I am talking about human Love, one for another.
I have also come to the conclusion that Jesus was a real historical figure, and he started the largest movement that any man has ever started , to this day that fact stands. He is the most written about figure in literature, second to none. More religions have been started in his name than any other human, dead or alive.
Jesus is;
Debated over more than any historical figure.
Actually worshipped by other men.
Has more influence than any dead man in history.
Prayed to by millions of humans, there is no other human in history to achieve this kind of accalades.
Drawn by more artist than any other figure in history.
Feared by politicians more than any human alive.
He is the central characther of the bible, humans historys first printed book and its number one best seller by far. The book is astounding, it has over 40 different authors who didnot compare notes. They lived over 40 different generations on 3 totally different continents, Africa, Asia and Europe. It was written in 3 different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It was written over a span of 1500 years, simply incredible! These incredible facts stand alone and speak for themselves. This book was blessed and has an arua like no other book.
This book has been translated in over 2,000 languages, 50 of them are sold every minute of each day. Jesus and the bible are definte evidence to include in your personal proof of God.
Peace.
Everything you have said in the above may well be true, however, it does nothing to prove the validity of Jesus Christ as the son of God, or the Bible as Gods word. All it means is that it was very well orchestrated and caught on very quickly and in a big way.
Everything you have said in the above may well be true, however, it does nothing to prove the validity of Jesus Christ as the son of God, or the Bible as Gods word. All it means is that it was very well orchestrated and caught on very quickly and in a big way.
If I may say, it perhaps does nothing to prove it to you, but my view of things is far differing than yours, it has done a lot for my belief. You acknowledge they may be true, and you have done well in doing so.
They may well be; and thats worth a second look in a search for truth.
If I may say, it perhaps does nothing to prove it to you, but my view of things is far differing than yours, it has done a lot for my belief. You acknowledge they may be true, and you have done well in doing so.
They may well be; and thats worth a second look in a search for truth.
Well no, I will respond, I always do, just not to the pacification of some others.
Excellent! Then respond to post #2 please.
Quote:
Which reminds me, one of the evidences of God, is " Intrest." God is interesting, alluring, magnifying. He draws the human consciousness to him. If he was " Uninteresting", there would never be debate.
So when people debate Hinduism or Islam, we should accept that as evidence for the existence of Allah and all the Hindu gods?
Oh dear! Not again!! Will you theists never tire of this nonsense?
They recorded stories that they had heard about Christians that worshipped a 'Jesus'. That is not evidence that Jesus existed. Homer recorded Zeus in our history. Are you willing to accept the existence of Zeus based on that evidence?
We have Baker Street, London where Sherlock Homes lived we have it. Holmes is proven to existed.
We have Mount Olympus in Greece where Zeus lived, we have it. The existence of Zeus is proven.
We have Whitehall in London where James Bond worked, we have it. James Bond is proven to have existed.
We have Paddington station in London, we have it. Paddington bear is proven to have existed.
No they are not. They are proof that people can write fiction based on real people and places. They still do it today. Are you seriously trying to tell us that any story that mentions real people, places or events is evidence that everything else mentioned in the story is also true. You can't be serious dude!!!
All the people you mentioned are mythical, not actual people who existed. Jesus was not mythical, he actually existed. When the historians recorded him, they didnot record him to be a myth, they recorded actual events that occured. They mentioned actual people in history that were associated with Jesus. None of the myths you listed are recorded in history to have associated with actual people.
Your effort to use myths, to erase reality is in error, you only create a symbolic arguement in which you look to equate myths with reality.
All the people you mentioned are mythical, not actual people who existed. Jesus was not mythical, he actually existed. When the historians recorded him, they didnot record him to be a myth, they recorded actual events that occured. They mentioned actual people in history that were associated with Jesus. None of the myths you listed are recorded in history to have associated with actual people.
Your effort to use myths, to erase reality is in error, you only create a symbolic arguement in which you look to equate myths with reality.
Peace.
So? I don't think too many people dispute that a man name Jesus most likely existed. Just like the historical records of the pharaohs of egypt show that the pharaohs (many considered to be gods), existed. What is your point?
So? I don't think too many people dispute that a man name Jesus most likely existed. Just like the historical records of the pharaohs of egypt show that the pharaohs (many considered to be gods), existed. What is your point?
The point is that the Bible is a historical record that is accurate and has some validity, - thus-, it records the existance of God, -thus, that has validity and is a valueble record in an individuals effort to prove God to themselves. The point is Academic and feared by bible distractors.
And I disasgree with you, many people still do dispute the existance of Jesus, its just that yearly the proof is beginning to pour in, and that truth is weakening their position. Biblical Archaeology is wrecking havoc on these distractors. This is why certain Atheist like Charles Bradlaugh, tried to " Soften Atheism", claiming that it does not state there is no God, but it merely is a lack of belief in God. The attempt is to shift proof to the Theist side. This is what you are doing now; Your statement;" So, I don't think too many people dispute that a man name Jesus most likely existed", is a " Softening of Atheism" which you wouldnot have admitted years ago when the proof was not solid.
Peace.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
