I don't get the attitude? Maybe I am misinterpreting your post but you seem angry or bitter? Untrue, there is plenty of truth to prove otherwise. It isn't the only evidence so you've lost this one. There is plenty of evidence and some of it happens to be circumstantial. I admit it but it still exists out there in various locations such as dvds, history, discovery channel and stores on dvd. Him you mean, do you believe in the supernatural? Things happen all the time that we can't explain but they happen none the less. Does that mean they didn't happen or don't exist?:nope: Why is today so special compared to back then? Why did American history happened the way it did? WE all want to know all the answers and have all the conveniences of today, yesterday, we are the microwave society, the quick fix and proof for everything. In a way god didn't sacrifice his own son and I will use scripture to proof it. The attitude once again. Ok, this first part is for anyone with an open mind, mainly christians. In Genesis 1-1 and 1-2 it links god to the holy spirit as one. In Genesis 1-26 it says let us make man in our image according to our likeness. Genesis 1-27 says god made man in his own image, in the image of god. Who is us? God alone, god the father, son and holy spirit. If you look a little further such as Genesis 8 the bible starts using the phrase the lord god. Where did this come from? Genesis was written before Jesus time meaning only god would know what the future would hold and also that Jesus is indeed god in the flesh. Hebrews 1-1 through 1-3 and you will find out that god spoke in various times and ways by prophets. God has spoken to us in these days through Jesus who is heir of all things Whom also he he made the worlds, who made the worlds? Jesus=god in flesh 1-3Who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person... Express image of who? god When we observe, hear, worship, prey to Jesus we do those things to god. Not only did Jesus come to teach, preach and save the world he came to be tempted of sin so that he could see what It was like to live on earth as a human to give him better understanding of our point of view. They don't want to do that, it would put them on the defense. Like USMTiger said before they go after the christian faith because this is a christian country.
OK, then give us your favorites and be prepared to back it up. I'm completely OK with people taking anything they want to as religion as long as they admit it is a matter of faith. Religion is all about faith, what else could it be? But I have little tolerence of religious folks claiming that historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence exists and gives validity to Hebrew and Christian mythology.
You are misinterpreting. I am not angry or bitter. What other evidence is there? Since there is so much of it care to link to just one piece of evidence? Finding the remains of towns mentioned in the bible does not count. We know most of those places existed for real. No, and nobody is making that claim. I do not have made up answers for the things I do not understand. Religion, however, claims it has an answer for everything we don't understand. Detailed answers. Can you cite an example of something that happens all of the time that we can't explain? Thanks for helping me point out one of the many contradictions in the Bible. Couldn't have done it better myself. It's a stupid question that is meaningless. You don't have to prove that concepts created by the mind are not concrete. If you'd like a comparison, serial killer David Berkowitz claimed that a talking dog ordered him to kill those people. Prove that there was no talking dog. Now you are on "the defense". All that question is is an attempt to divert the fact that you can offer absolutely no proof, and to steer the uncomfortable questions away from the people making the claims. We don't need to go after the Muslim faith because any non-idiot already knows how evil it is, and there are no Muslim posters that I know of, thereby no interesting debates. If there were Muslims on here to offer their point of view then we would be discussing Islam just as much.
right. but your question implied that it is somehow interesting to consider things just because we cannot prove them untrue. if that is the case then you should be prepared for the possibility that i am god. do you understand that? do you understand what a non-point it is to ask if we can prove god untrue? when people say things like this, i want them to really consider them, not just throw them out and forget about them. all these points have been discussed repeatedly and they are just ignored. i do not see the point of making such an effort to ignore reality this same thing happens with pascal's wager over and over as well. and also people like to claim that atheists are the ones having faith for not believing. and when the absurdity of this is explained, it is ignored or forgotten. supafan and red have it right. faith based arguments are just that, faith-based. you believe because you like to, no other reason. if you cared about reason you wouldnt believe. there is no reason why we cant be honest and admit that it comforts us to have faith. that we do not like the world without god, and faith helps us. i do not see it the same way, but i respect the honesty of that viewpoint. if you try to bring out evidence or reasons why the bible is true, you are wasting your time. there is no evidence. there is faith, and that is all.
actually i was trying to show the futility of this argument both ways. countless threads begin and end with non-believers asking for "evidence" and believers trying to provide faith based evidence. on cue, the non-believers ask for logic and fact. i was simply trying to stir the pot and shake up the same old tired, "the bible was written by dumb old hebrews" and "worship the spaghetti monster" diatribes by asking for irrefutable proof that God does not exist.....just the same standard that you and others require. oh, and btw, there are several reasonably intelligent folk who allow for the possibility of intelligent design and a divine Creator.
you still are not following. asking for proof of a lack of knowledge makes no sense. if you tell me you do not know what time it is, i do not ask to see your watch that indicates that. your watch, the evidence, will only indicate positive knowledge. the negative proof is pointless. proof is based on evidence, not a lack of evidence. if you assert that the universe was created by god, you are the one asserting that. until you provide a reason, the status of your assertion is undetermined. that doesnt make it true, that doesnt make it untrue. it means literally nothing. and you do not seem to be grokking how the counterexample makes your point obviously ludicrous. atheists have famously made the argument that you cannot prove there is not a teacup orbiting somewhere in the universe that is controlling everything. this doesnt mean we should start building teacup worshipping stations. the fact that we cannot prove the teacup is not there is of no relevance, and means nothing. yes, like me. i allow for that possibility. for the zillionth time, i do not deny the possibility. i only wish you could see how irrelevant this is. i also am aware that it is possible the universe was created by zeus. when you find the person who is making positive claims about the non-existence of god, argue with them. but i have never met anyone like this, or really even heard of this. it is a straw man argument. almost literally nobody denies that god could exist.
A claim that says something exists is usually supported by some sort of physical or visual evidence, thereby making it incredibly easy to prove that something exist. A claim to prove something does not exist is almost an impossible position to take because the burden is on the claimer to eliminate every conceivable possibility. There are almost an infinite number of possibilities when discussing concepts that have no obvious physical evidence. The fact that it is infinitely easier to prove existence of something if it indeed exist means that even though both claims may not be provable by physical evidence, this implications on the "pro-existence" side are much, much worse.
