neither can be proven, at least not by the living. only someone that has died could prove one way or the other and well since they're dead they aren't going to prove anything. I believe this has already been mentioned lol

My friend, You are ignorant of the academic proof of the existence of Jesus. I want to fully emphasize that I'm not appealing to scripture alone, but but upon the academia of the modern day scholars and am not resting on faith alone or the conjecture of it's doubters.

Again, I will accuse you of requiring 21st century proof before it's very science. In the time of Jesus, 95% of the populace could not read or write. To compensate, The people often relied on oral tradition which was of a great importance. Modern day society requires evidence that is verifiable through the current accepted media.

Life itself is a miracle; a phenomena that that science, as far as we know, acknowledges it's complete randomness. It far for MORE LIKELY that a life prohibiting universe is more likely to exist, yet here we are. We are either a great cosmic accident with no further significance or created by a grand designer that provides reason for it all.

I can take on a humanistic lens that offers nothing more than desolation. Our life is arbitrary. The ends justify the means; the means justify the end. Morality is subjective to relativism. Society, through evolution, can evolve past the limitations of the current acceptable morality. Murder, in time, could be seen as a necessary cleansing of the weak until it's one's time to fall on the sword.

There is no morality without a definitive source that many recognize as God. There has to be a unmoved mover; something that is necessary in it's self that makes seemingly contradictory movements, for the sake of freewill, that much of mankind unwittingly rejects.

God is the first cause. Objectively. the first cause cannot be repeatable. The number one isn't the number two, though the number two consists of two ones. Life also consists of unrepeatable results. Science fails for it can only measure repeatable results. In a humanistic senses, we, as humanity's end rests in nothing more than a heat death. Our thoughts are meaningless and any attempt at offering another way is wishful thinking. Eat, Drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die..... Life without an absolute origin is meaningless.

As per usual, I offer agnosticism rather than Christianity. ATHEISM CAN NOT SURVIVE UNLESS IT VERIFIES IT'S BELIEFS.Simply, If there is no god, Why? Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Period. Case closed. What ever follows outside of definitive proof of the negative is semantics. I can open my cupboard and recognize there is no cereal there without knowing what cereal is bu5 knowing what it isn't.

Atheism is the blatant unwillingness to accept the offered proof of the existence of God through the person of Jesus which was revealed to man a short two thousand years ago. I can easily concede a debate to an atheist if one admits one has no willingnes to accept the probability of God which removes the initial cause making life totally absurd and arbitrary.

Well, until you can prove there's a god would you mind not causing so many wars (in HIS name)? This would include voting for people who lie to go kill Muslims...ahem.

Thanks! I really appreciate it.

Samgem...and you are perhaps ignorant of the topic of the thread and the original post...together both ask, prove God without the use of biblical scripture ....you constantly including Jesus in the equation proves that you can't ....

it's called "The Trinity Hustle" it's a deception tactic as believers try to use one god as proof of the other god but in reality can not provide proof that either of the gods exist

as I said... just admit that you have no proof and claim faith

God exist this you know
for the bible tells you so .....

well ...er... unless Jesus personally told you

You are blatantly twisting the parameters in this debate to suit your agenda while accusing me of the same.



It is YOU who cannot have a debate without using straw men to win the argument. I refer to Jesus in this debate emphasizing the ACADEMIC evidence that lay outside of scripture. You simply DO NOT want to accept this and this debate really cannot proceed any further. It's the same if I asked you to debate me without using atheism and your preconceptions or if I asked asked you to defend your position without using words like "no" and "not". If I have to yield to your parameters then of course you would have the upper hand in the debate because you control the rules to suit your end. It's simply not a fair debate.

I appreciate your responses, but under these conditions I really cannot add any more to the debate than what's been already said. I've been repeating myself and it's clear that you simply don't accept the evidence I put forth which is no evidence at all in your perception.

Again, athesim should be redefined as the unwillingness to believe in god. Just as myself, you are not impartial and rely on preconceived ideas which then forces the parameters to change. Atheism is a belief system despite the denials by atheists. The only way an atheist can win this debate is by controlling the parameters and ignoring the evidence while cherry picking what is responded to.

I extend my hand for a cyber-shake and wish you well with your endeavors.

Samgem...since Jesus did not leave an scripture or writings behind himself means there is no academic evidence that lay outside the scriptures and it's your attempt to manufacture false evidence

the thread ask for proof of God without the inclusion of biblical referenece ....Jesus is clearly a biblical reference ..your insistance on finding a loophole to use Jesus, again only shows that you have no proof beyond "this I know for the bible tells me so"

Dude, I will not argue with people who show disrespect to others who are not religious. Know who and what you are arguing with...some deserve no quarter in a discussion.

"There is no morality without a definitive source that many recognize as God"

I consider that an insult...as well as a complete lie. E.G. Hitler was a Christian...

during a study pertaining to religious delusion, nothing said should be taken personally but everything said should be included as part of the study

Ok, you wish to continue? Be honest with yourself. What would it matter if he left any scripture when you'd just prevent me from using it? I mean really! lol You'd simply shoot down the scripture as forgery or use some other excuse! You cannot have it both ways, bro!

If you never could read or write, does it mean you don't exist? And what if the proof of your existence was recorded by those close to you. Would there records be totally inaccurate?

Ok, here's what I'm referring to as academic proof of the existence of Jesus: http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

I'll restate and restate until you concede to the fact that the person Jesus did exist! Jesus is the evidence you refuse to accept and wish to ignore. I include the existence of Jesus as evidence because he was an actual living and breathing historical figure! There IS NO GOOD REASON TO THROW OUT THIS EVIDENCE. NONE! If he did exist, why was he crucified? Why should the gospels be rejected as proof? Because you say so? Convenient. Again, please understand this. You require 21st century evidence for that which existed in the first century. Modern technology simply cannot accommodate this. I'll stop using Jesus as evidence when you stop using atheism for your defense. Deal? lol.

If anything, the extra-biblical sources, which if I remember correctly as fifty sources, bolsters the gospels and validates them. But you'd rather control the debate and throw out this evidence.

If there is no Jesus, how did Christianity come about using historical facts and NOT conjecture? You simply are unable to provide the answer as you continue to sidestep my questions.

Proof of God? WE are proof of God. The absurdity of life with no concrete morality makes everything permissible. This is proof. For you, I'm sure it's not proof at all. What is morality and ethics? What makes something right or wrong?

I've used the philosophical angle which I'll repeat yet again to no avail:

1.) What ever begins to exist has a cause
2.) The universe began to exist
3.) the universe has a cause.

Christians believe the first cause to be God as science concedes that the universe IS NOT eternal with the rejection of the Steady State Theory. To be objective We can easily insert "X" instaed of the use of the word "God".

"Science is the body of systematic knowledge of physical phenomena obtained by the scientific method which is the research method characterized by:

1. clear definition of the problem
2. gathering of relevant data
3. induction of an hypothesis
4. empirical testing of deductions from the hypothesis

Thus the predictions of science are not absolute truth and an hypothesis stands only until it is disproved by a single fact. Science theories are always changing."

To conclude, again to no avail, Modern day philosophical orientated Christians use science and facts to support their position. In order for you to successfully win this debate, you have to prove what "X" is. You have to say "X" is the reason for our existence and not God. Also, you have to actually provide evidence as to why the New Testament References to Jesus' existence are invalid without using conjecture. You simply won't. You'd also be successful if you can prove with certainty that Jesus did not exist. You'll, instead, ignore my questions and pick and choose what you'll respond to. So why are we still debating?

Samgem...all I'm saiding is that the thread asked for proof without referring to biblical scripture and as ususal your responses are filled with them .... also "first cause" does not proves, it only assumes ..using that first cause scenerio one can assume that since there is existence it was because of the great pumpkin not god ....if you wish to use first cause then you would still have to provide proof that it was due to god and not the tooth fairie

also can you explain why you think that if you can prove that Jesus existed that it would be proof of the existence of God ....

nope...cant be done

Why can't I submit an actual historical figure as evidence? Please explain this to me and actually try to address my questions for once. Then, why can't the gospels be used as evidence? If they can be used as evidence, why can't we believe what Jesus said?

Don't worry. Just ask another question and don't address these issues in your usual fashion. Most of all, why can't I rephrase the question of the debate? Do I really have to start another thread to introduce my questions? Really? Why does the atheist insist on not using evidence and then when presented with evidence if said evidence is not in the atheists acceptable parameters it's simply discarded.

Why don't you admit that there could never be ANY acceptable proof for you and that you are unwilling to look at all the evidence. Yes, the Gospels are, in fact, evidence. Give me a good reason to discard this evidence. You can't. You simply want to control the parameters of your debate to suit your unwillingness to look at all the facts. I bet you didn't even look at the link. If you don't want to have an actual debate, why do you persist in your questioning? Seriously.

If you view the Great Pumpkin as the first cause we are still saying the same thing which is why I introduced "X" as the value for first cause. Science validates the first cause through the big bang theory. This is commonly accepted science.

Ok on to your next question as you ignore mine. Have at it.

Samgem...er...perhaps....since all your questions are off topic ..start a thread about using the bible to prove the bible

Why is that even necessary? You still won't concede to the fact that you simply don't want to believe in a god and under no circumstances. You refuse to acknowledge the historicity of the existence of Jesus because it would end your argument. We covered it all here as you attempt to set the parameters of the debate. You lost. You have no evidence. You cant's have a belief and then have no evidence for it. Atheism is the belief that no god existence and offers nothing as proof as you all attempt semantics and word games only to avoid the ultimate truth. It's clear that there is nothing more to discuss. Good luck to you.

Samgem...the thread is not about me having a belief in a God...the thread asked you to prove god without using religious scriptures ...

so far you tried every trick in the book to find loopholes so that you can use religious scriptures, you even went so far as to suggest that you be allowed to re-phrase the thread so that you can use religious scripture...you even tried to suggest that things wrote about Jesus other than what is written in the bible should not be regarded as being religious when it clearly is ...you even suggest that Jesus existence proves God's existence but never explain how

let's face it...you clearly have no proof of god beyond mind faith and the sci-fi channel

Let's face it, you clearly can't read or refuse to read what he posted. Here it is nice and simple, all you have to do is click it and then use your brain.
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

I'm coming in late on this thread, but the very first thing that came to my mind when I read the title of this thread was: "Define exactly what it is you want proof of."

This seems to always be a problem with this kind of question. What usually happens is that someone presents a viewpoint and then someone else replys with "that's not what I meant by 'God'".

In other words, it's kind of a baiting question. It leaves a huge loophole that the questioner can always use to get out of anything.

For example, the pantheistic view is that everything is collectively god. So from that perspective, the existence of anything at all is absolute proof of the existence of god.

I can't prove God if you can't accept the evidence. You didn't even look at the link. The link is extra-biblical accounts of the existence of Jesus which clearly makes him a Historical figure. Where have I quoted scripture in this thread ever? I didn't. You've tried every trick in the book to dodge my questions that you know leads to the end result. You, frankly, would deny the existence of God regardless of the evidence or thread topic. Be real for once.

You already know the answer to how Jesus explains the existence of God which is why you are desperate to avoid it. You are a God denier and you need no evidence because none would suffice. I'm done with this thread though you keep going with this insisting on YOUR parameters. Don't bother to respond further unless you are capable of addressing the historicity of Jesus. You're no longer speaking with me anymore after this point on this thread.

"It's not the topic of the thread" Such desperation you use for a question you refuse to answer. Is another thread necessary when you can't validate your claims? You lost because you have no evidence and refuse to accept the evidence offered. Nice try. Address someone else. Good luck to you.

Peter_Pan...most what "Samgem" posted pertains to biblical scriptures which the thread suggest not be use, the rest were based on "fist cause" assumption ....also if you have evidence then post it in the thread using your own thoughts if possible...don't hide behind a website link because the author can not be debated unless you are the author of that link

Jesus is an historical figure pertaining to the bible ...in case no one told you some people even claim that he is God...jesus is also mention in the bible someplace ..there are even rumors that he lives in Heaven ...according to belief God even use him as his right finger or is that his right arm ...so don't you think this somewhat qualify Jesus as being a member of the scripture squad ...