100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Are Atheists Open for a Chat? - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I think Funches was saying 'you can't prove God exists as more than a fictional character in a book' BY JOVE I THINK MASSAGETRADE GOT IT well almost ...I said as a character in a book Yes and you can not prove Abraham Lincoln exists more then a fictional character in a book. You can not prove Einstein exists more then a fictional character. These things are taken as fact for we have put faith in their validity. Without faith in their validity, these people are nothing more then Peter Pan. Cowboy...are you disputing that people exist .. also Abraham lincoln nor Einstein ever made a claim of being an invisible creator of the universe ..... if so you would think they were delusional That was not the point AT ALL. People claim there is no proof for Jesus outside the bible. Well there's not proof for anything outside of different books on things beyond 100 years or so. So why does one point out specifically the bible as then not holding validity when in reality anything beyond say 100 or so years only has validity through a book or some form of documentation as such. Cowboy...just admit that you have no undisputable evidence that God exist beyond being a character in a book .....use your faith to tell the truth Funches... just admit that you have no indisputable evidence that the world is round beyond someone's fantasy in a book. Admit that you have no indisputable evidence that the world is covered by a good majority in water beyond someone's fantasy in a book. I don't have to prove God exists beyond a book. Why should I? well the reality is...you can't ..I think I've proved my point And what was your point? Who's trying to prove God? Dude, we're just having a discussion. This isn't a competition, this isn't a contest, this isn't anything more then mere discussion. No one's trying to prove anything. You do seem to be trying to disprove God, which I can not understand. For one can not prove God, nor can one disprove God. We're here for purely enlightened discussion. Again, nothing can be proven or disproved about God. wow Cowboy...if this is just a discussion...then couldn't it been that I was discussing how I've proved my point...let's face it...you have no undisputable evidence that God exist beyond being a character in a book ....all I did was asked you to admit that you don't ....is it so hard for you to just admit to the truth .....is this the way of the christian or is it just your way No, I'll admit there is entirely no evidence outside the bible that proves God. And there is entirely no evidence that disproves it either. The creations of this world are built around THEORIES. Or in simple terms, Educated Guesses. There is no need in the first place. I have no need to prove God to anyone. That's what I think is absolutely funny about you Funches. I'm not here to have anyone believe in anything, I'm not preaching, I'm not trying to convert anyone. Again, this is a DISCUSSION forum. I'm just here for pure enlightened discussion. Not trying to prove anything, not trying to show anything, not trying anything other then having nice conversation with different people about our different beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/21/11 09:17 PM
|
|
Yes and you can not prove Abraham Lincoln exists more then a fictional character in a book. You can not prove Einstein exists more then a fictional character. These things are taken as fact for we have put faith in their validity. Without faith in their validity, these people are nothing more then Peter Pan. Cowboy, your example that a person can't prove that Abraham Lincoln or Einstein exists more than a fictional character is not a good example. The difference is, there are many many many different sources and evidence for their existence, plus pictures and witnesses etc. These many different forms of evidence are good enough evidence to believe that they existed. Jesus on the other hand, has no such evidence except the New Testament. Any other mention of him in a few other writings is only a very vague reference from a character who's own existence is in question. If you subtract the new testament, there is no evidence at all. But for Abraham Lincoln or Einstein, you could not even hope to destroy all the evidence of their their existence. It is accepted as proof by history and the establishment. Jesus may have existed. But if there were no new testament, no one would know about it or believe it. That alone is the only book that claims he did exist. That is why your example does not fly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and you can not prove Abraham Lincoln exists more then a fictional character in a book. You can not prove Einstein exists more then a fictional character. These things are taken as fact for we have put faith in their validity. Without faith in their validity, these people are nothing more then Peter Pan. Cowboy, your example that a person can't prove that Abraham Lincoln or Einstein exists more than a fictional character is not a good example. The difference is, there are many many many different sources and evidence for their existence, plus pictures and witnesses etc. These many different forms of evidence are good enough evidence to believe that they existed. Jesus on the other hand, has no such evidence except the New Testament. Any other mention of him in a few other writings is only a very vague reference from a character who's own existence is in question. If you subtract the new testament, there is no evidence at all. But for Abraham Lincoln or Einstein, you could not even hope to destroy all the evidence of their their existence. It is accepted as proof by history and the establishment. Jesus may have existed. But if there were no new testament, no one would know about it or believe it. That alone is the only book that claims he did exist. That is why your example does not fly. Who's trying to prove Jesus? Who's trying to prove anything? Guess you guys have forgotten that we are here to DISCUSS. Just a casual chat about religious beliefs. No one's trying to prove anything, just purely share our different beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Funches was saying 'you can't prove God exists as more than a fictional character in a book' BY JOVE I THINK MASSAGETRADE GOT IT well almost ...I said as a character in a book Yes and you can not prove Abraham Lincoln exists more then a fictional character in a book. You can not prove Einstein exists more then a fictional character. These things are taken as fact for we have put faith in their validity. Without faith in their validity, these people are nothing more then Peter Pan. Noone is greater than I... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Funches was saying 'you can't prove God exists as more than a fictional character in a book' BY JOVE I THINK MASSAGETRADE GOT IT well almost ...I said as a character in a book Yes and you can not prove Abraham Lincoln exists more then a fictional character in a book. You can not prove Einstein exists more then a fictional character. These things are taken as fact for we have put faith in their validity. Without faith in their validity, these people are nothing more then Peter Pan. Noone is greater than I... LoL, took me a second to catch on to what you were on about. Different Peter Pan :)= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Funches was saying 'you can't prove God exists as more than a fictional character in a book' BY JOVE I THINK MASSAGETRADE GOT IT well almost ...I said as a character in a book Yes and you can not prove Abraham Lincoln exists more then a fictional character in a book. You can not prove Einstein exists more then a fictional character. These things are taken as fact for we have put faith in their validity. Without faith in their validity, these people are nothing more then Peter Pan. Noone is greater than I... LoL, took me a second to catch on to what you were on about. Different Peter Pan :)= I have no proof that trolls exist, but I can prove that if you don't feed them, they go away... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and you can not prove Abraham Lincoln exists more then a fictional character in a book. You can not prove Einstein exists more then a fictional character. These things are taken as fact for we have put faith in their validity. Without faith in their validity, these people are nothing more then Peter Pan. Cowboy, your example that a person can't prove that Abraham Lincoln or Einstein exists more than a fictional character is not a good example. The difference is, there are many many many different sources and evidence for their existence, plus pictures and witnesses etc. These many different forms of evidence are good enough evidence to believe that they existed. Jesus on the other hand, has no such evidence except the New Testament. Any other mention of him in a few other writings is only a very vague reference from a character who's own existence is in question. If you subtract the new testament, there is no evidence at all. But for Abraham Lincoln or Einstein, you could not even hope to destroy all the evidence of their their existence. It is accepted as proof by history and the establishment. Jesus may have existed. But if there were no new testament, no one would know about it or believe it. That alone is the only book that claims he did exist. That is why your example does not fly. Who's trying to prove Jesus? Who's trying to prove anything? Guess you guys have forgotten that we are here to DISCUSS. Just a casual chat about religious beliefs. No one's trying to prove anything, just purely share our different beliefs. It doesn't matter what you think you're doing, Jeannie still called it correctly. You example doesn't fly. Comparing a belief in people for which there is overwhelming independent evidence for, with a mythological character that is only mentioned in a single mythological story that even contains outrageous unrealistic claims, is an invalid comparison as Jeannie points out. And that falls under the category of mere DISCUSSION. Besides, you were also talking about FAITH. Does it really matter whether someone credits the discovers that Albert Einstein made with him, or some Joe Blow? I don't think it would change a thing. So there's really need 'need" to have FAITH that Albert Einstein ever lived. We have the knowledge he discovered and it's been verified to be true without a shadow of a doubt. Where would a "need" for FAITH come into play unless you merely wanted to believe in something that we don't have proof of. Like the idea that Zeus was the Father of Hercules. If that's important to you, then yes, you would need to have FAITH in that relationship because clearly it can't be proven. FAITH is for people who "need" to believe in something that they can't know to be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence is not needed. The ONLY one that can prove God to you is yourself. The only one that can prove anything to you is yourself. I can not prove to you planet Earth has gravity less you test it for yourself. I can not prove to you water freezes as a certain degree less you test it yourself. Again, no one can prove to you God is real and or what God is the true God but yourself. Cowboy...evidence is required that God exist beyond a book....it's just that you don't have any evidence..that's why it's called a "belief" .. a belief needs no evidence beyond faith ...the truth does You can not prove the world is round beyond a book. You can not prove the world is covered by a lot of water without a book You can not prove anything not immediately right in front of someone without a book. What does it being in a book have to do with anything? I think you guys are using the phrase 'beyond a book' in different ways. Cowboy, I believe you are saying "you can't prove X without intermediary sources, or indirect evidence, such as one might find in a book". I think Funches was saying 'you can't prove God exists as more than a fictional character in a book' I could be wrong. That is same thing I was saying as well. You can not prove the world is round beyond a book. You can not prove the world is covered by a lot of water beyond a book Same thing as him saying I can not prove God beyond a book. Nothing but something immediately seen/felt can be proven beyond a book. You can not prove to me these things definitely without any form of doubt beyond a book. You can not positively show these things beyond a book. No they are very different things, We can prove the world is round beyone a book, from the pictures that have been taken and the fact that men have flown around it.. The same as water it is there in front of us to see and feel so it is also out of the book. But God, is in the book, but there is nothing concrete to hold onto. I think tthat is what funches is saying I dont mean you cant hold onto his word or even him, but there is nothing real that you can lok at and see, or feel and hold once you shut the book. And yes we can argue that we can feel God but that is then just ignoring what funches is saying because we all know what he means. And its really not explainable which is where faith comes in.. so once again we go in circles. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Thu 04/21/11 10:58 PM
|
|
THE HEAVENS DECLARE THE GLORY OF GOD THE FIRMAMENT DECLARES GOD'S HANDIWORK  ALSO.... WHEN JESUS COMES TO LIVE IN A BELIEVER'S HEART, GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT BEARS WITNESS WITH THE BELIEVER'S SPIRIT , THUS LETTING HIM KNOW THAT HE IS NOW A BORN AGAIN CHILD OF GOD. PROOF POSITIVE RIGHT THERE FOR A BELIEVER THAT GOD INDEED DOES EXIST.... AND THAT JESUS INDEED IS TRULY WHO HE SAYS HE IS : THE WAY ...THE TRUTH ...AND THE LIFE. YES....  GOD DOES INDEED EXIST. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/proof-that-god-exists-faq.htm http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/does-god-exist-c.htm http://www.allabouttruth.org/holy-bible.htm http://www.allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm http://www.allaboutgod.com/god-o.htm  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/21/11 11:21 PM
|
|
Yes and you can not prove Abraham Lincoln exists more then a fictional character in a book. You can not prove Einstein exists more then a fictional character. These things are taken as fact for we have put faith in their validity. Without faith in their validity, these people are nothing more then Peter Pan. Cowboy, your example that a person can't prove that Abraham Lincoln or Einstein exists more than a fictional character is not a good example. The difference is, there are many many many different sources and evidence for their existence, plus pictures and witnesses etc. These many different forms of evidence are good enough evidence to believe that they existed. Jesus on the other hand, has no such evidence except the New Testament. Any other mention of him in a few other writings is only a very vague reference from a character who's own existence is in question. If you subtract the new testament, there is no evidence at all. But for Abraham Lincoln or Einstein, you could not even hope to destroy all the evidence of their their existence. It is accepted as proof by history and the establishment. Jesus may have existed. But if there were no new testament, no one would know about it or believe it. That alone is the only book that claims he did exist. That is why your example does not fly. Who's trying to prove Jesus? Who's trying to prove anything? Guess you guys have forgotten that we are here to DISCUSS. Just a casual chat about religious beliefs. No one's trying to prove anything, just purely share our different beliefs. Cowboy, YOU are obviously trying to make some kind of point about proof and faith. I am TRYING to DISCUSS with you that your example does not fly if you are attempting to compare the Jesus example to the Einstein or Abraham Lincoln example. And if you want to believe in Jesus that is perfectly okay, but you don't need to go on and on about your theories about how you think everything anyone believes is based purely on faith. That's just not true. Some people actually like to THINK about the evidence and make informed decisions. They don't just pick one they like and decide to believe that. My belief system is based on a lot of evidence. I did not just pick something I liked and decide to put my faith in that. I have put a lot of thought into it. I am still open for any additional evidence, ideas and information. Unlike hard core scientists, I consider all information that sounds reasonable. I don't insist on scientific proof, I just look for something that follows some form of logic and reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My belief system is based on a lot of evidence. I did not just pick something I liked and decide to put my faith in that. I have put a lot of thought into it. Truly, all Cowboy is saying is that he has no more reason to believe in Jesus than he has to believe in anything else so he just randomly chose to believe in Jesus because he likes that sort of thing I guess. I too put much thought and consideration into everything I accept and as you have correctly pointed out there is indeed far more reason to believe in some things over others. Like evolution over old superstitious mythological creation stories for example. I am still open for any additional evidence, ideas and information. Unlike hard core scientists, I consider all information that sounds reasonable. I don't insist on scientific proof, I just look for something that follows some form of logic and reason. Hardcore scientists?  I think you're mistaking the opinions and views of highly uneducated atheists who used science and an "excuse" to support their nonsense. Any scientist worth their salt is going to consider anything that follows logic and reason. Just look at String Theorists, they are totally GUESSING about the existence of strings. Yet they consider them because they are chasing logic and reason. In fact, mostly what they are "chasing" is PURE ABSTRACT mathematics actually. String theory has no experimental or observational reasons for believing in it. So the real scientists do indeed "chase their dreams". The results simply aren't "science" until they've been shown to be true. And science does not hold that strings actually exist. But scientists DO hope that they might! That's not all that much different from a concept of spirit if you ask me. I guess that all depends on how you "define" your concept of "spirit". I can define it in a way that makes scientific sense. So since that's the definition I use, for me it's a valid scientific hypothesis, just like String Theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 04/21/11 11:15 PM
|
|
I think you're mistaking the opinions and views of highly uneducated atheists who used science and an "excuse" to support their nonsense. Thanks. I don't get into all that math and I don't understand a lot of that science stuff, and I have encountered some so-called scientists who tell me that I am ignorant. I am sure I am ignorant about many things, especially math. But sometimes the 'science' simply does not make logical sense. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're mistaking the opinions and views of highly uneducated atheists who used science and an "excuse" to support their nonsense. Thanks. I don't get into all that math and I don't understand a lot of that science stuff, and I have encountered some so-called scientists who tell me that I am ignorant. I am sure I am ignorant about many things, especially math. But sometimes the 'science' simply does not make logical sense. Well, if a so-called scientist is calling you "ignorant", then he or she doesn't have much credibility as a person anyway. So who cares? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Thu 04/21/11 11:50 PM
|
|
MorningSong wrote: YES.... GOD DOES INDEED EXIST. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/proof-that-god-exists-faq.htm I took the time to look at your first link since you offered it as "proof that god exists". After looking at the contents of that link I see no reason to waste my time looking at any others. The reason being that their so-called "proofs" are no proof at all. Their first "proof" is the following: It should be obvious that God exists because of His creation, not only us humans, but the world we live in, the galaxy that world is in, and the universe that the galaxy is in. Our universe contains too much order for our existence to have been created out of chaos. We are complex beyond our imaginations and when you look at such a complexity, you see God and His creation. No it's not obvious that god exists because the universe exists. Or because some people believe that it's complex. Complex relative to what? Our simple minds? Moreover, the implication here is that we are too complex not to have had an intelligent designer, YET, these people are prepared to believe that a far more complex God exists and has no designer.  So much for their so-called "proof". All they did was show that they haven't thought about this very deeply. Here's their second so-called "proof" 1. we are all born with an innate knowledge of what is right and wrong 2. we have a desire to seek love #1 is clearly false. All humans do not agree on what is right and wrong. Thus their claim that we are born with such knowledge is clearly an ERROR on their part. This is simply FALSE. #2 doesn't "prove" that a God exists. All it says is that humans tend to be a mating social animal and we tend to like to have company. In fact, not all humans seek love. Some humans don't even appear to have a clue what "love" even means. In fact, the very concept of "love" is a human-made concept. The fact most humans like to have close friends or a permanent companion that they can trust probably stems more from insecurities than for any other reason. And here is there final "proof": All we need to do is take a good look at the life of Jesus to see that He was a man, but more than a man, He was God. When was the last time you saw a man walk on water, calm a storm, or make a man rise from the dead? Even Jesus Himself conquered death and rose again to ascend to Heaven. How is this "proof" of anything? We can't even know if those stories are anything more than superstitious fables. It's no wonder they think they can "proof" that god exists, they have no clue what it even means to be able to "prove" something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence is not needed. The ONLY one that can prove God to you is yourself. The only one that can prove anything to you is yourself. I can not prove to you planet Earth has gravity less you test it for yourself. I can not prove to you water freezes as a certain degree less you test it yourself. Again, no one can prove to you God is real and or what God is the true God but yourself. Cowboy...evidence is required that God exist beyond a book....it's just that you don't have any evidence..that's why it's called a "belief" .. a belief needs no evidence beyond faith ...the truth does You can not prove the world is round beyond a book. You can not prove the world is covered by a lot of water without a book You can not prove anything not immediately right in front of someone without a book. What does it being in a book have to do with anything? I think you guys are using the phrase 'beyond a book' in different ways. Cowboy, I believe you are saying "you can't prove X without intermediary sources, or indirect evidence, such as one might find in a book". I think Funches was saying 'you can't prove God exists as more than a fictional character in a book' I could be wrong. That is same thing I was saying as well. You can not prove the world is round beyond a book. You can not prove the world is covered by a lot of water beyond a book Same thing as him saying I can not prove God beyond a book. Nothing but something immediately seen/felt can be proven beyond a book. You can not prove to me these things definitely without any form of doubt beyond a book. You can not positively show these things beyond a book. No they are very different things, We can prove the world is round beyone a book, from the pictures that have been taken and the fact that men have flown around it.. The same as water it is there in front of us to see and feel so it is also out of the book. But God, is in the book, but there is nothing concrete to hold onto. I think tthat is what funches is saying I dont mean you cant hold onto his word or even him, but there is nothing real that you can lok at and see, or feel and hold once you shut the book. And yes we can argue that we can feel God but that is then just ignoring what funches is saying because we all know what he means. And its really not explainable which is where faith comes in.. so once again we go in circles. finally someone that understands....or atleast not wiling to deny the logic behind what I posted.....but yes I'm not even disputing God's existence because I acknowledge that God does exist as a character in a book and that there is undisputable evidence of this, ...I simply ask for undisputable proof that God exist beyond that character in the book ...or just admit there is none and this is why a belief in God is just that.....a belief ...because no one can provide any undisputable evidence that God exist beyond a book, mind or faith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence is not needed. The ONLY one that can prove God to you is yourself. The only one that can prove anything to you is yourself. I can not prove to you planet Earth has gravity less you test it for yourself. I can not prove to you water freezes as a certain degree less you test it yourself. Again, no one can prove to you God is real and or what God is the true God but yourself. Cowboy...evidence is required that God exist beyond a book....it's just that you don't have any evidence..that's why it's called a "belief" .. a belief needs no evidence beyond faith ...the truth does You can not prove the world is round beyond a book. You can not prove the world is covered by a lot of water without a book You can not prove anything not immediately right in front of someone without a book. What does it being in a book have to do with anything? I think you guys are using the phrase 'beyond a book' in different ways. Cowboy, I believe you are saying "you can't prove X without intermediary sources, or indirect evidence, such as one might find in a book". I think Funches was saying 'you can't prove God exists as more than a fictional character in a book' I could be wrong. That is same thing I was saying as well. You can not prove the world is round beyond a book. You can not prove the world is covered by a lot of water beyond a book Same thing as him saying I can not prove God beyond a book. Nothing but something immediately seen/felt can be proven beyond a book. You can not prove to me these things definitely without any form of doubt beyond a book. You can not positively show these things beyond a book. No they are very different things, We can prove the world is round beyone a book, from the pictures that have been taken and the fact that men have flown around it.. The same as water it is there in front of us to see and feel so it is also out of the book. But God, is in the book, but there is nothing concrete to hold onto. I think tthat is what funches is saying I dont mean you cant hold onto his word or even him, but there is nothing real that you can lok at and see, or feel and hold once you shut the book. And yes we can argue that we can feel God but that is then just ignoring what funches is saying because we all know what he means. And its really not explainable which is where faith comes in.. so once again we go in circles. finally someone that understands....or atleast not wiling to deny the logic behind what I posted.....but yes I'm not even disputing God's existence because I acknowledge that God does exist as a character in a book and that there is undisputable evidence of this, ...I simply ask for undisputable proof that God exist beyond that character in the book ...or just admit there is none and this is why a belief in God is just that.....a belief ...because no one can provide any undisputable evidence that God exist beyond a book, mind or faith You are just to smart for your own good. Yep you are right, AGAIN I have a strong BELIEF in God..I have read about him in a BOOK.. I have a strong FAITH. There is absolutly nothing concrete that i can do to show you he is real. I cant even show myself. it is just my personal BELIEF which is why I never push it onto someone else, as i cannot prove it, I can show I love Jesus by my actions, but ultimately I will never be able to live up to peoples expectations. Why because people are unrealistic, They are a little like a dog with a bone, once they get a hold of something they just dont let go. There will always be something they can see in my life that is wrong. And really the Bible can so easily be turned around , so that it can be used to hurt people. In the wrong peoples hands it is a horrid thing as they can excuse anything they do by twisting the words in it.. There are millins of peole who blindly believe what people tell them the Bible says,They never question what someone says that God said. Well that is just another form of stupidity. Bummer I have wandered off track again. Yes you are right , there is no proof beyond what a book says or people feel. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and you can not prove Abraham Lincoln exists more then a fictional character in a book. You can not prove Einstein exists more then a fictional character. These things are taken as fact for we have put faith in their validity. Without faith in their validity, these people are nothing more then Peter Pan. Cowboy, your example that a person can't prove that Abraham Lincoln or Einstein exists more than a fictional character is not a good example. The difference is, there are many many many different sources and evidence for their existence, plus pictures and witnesses etc. These many different forms of evidence are good enough evidence to believe that they existed. Jesus on the other hand, has no such evidence except the New Testament. Any other mention of him in a few other writings is only a very vague reference from a character who's own existence is in question. If you subtract the new testament, there is no evidence at all. But for Abraham Lincoln or Einstein, you could not even hope to destroy all the evidence of their their existence. It is accepted as proof by history and the establishment. Jesus may have existed. But if there were no new testament, no one would know about it or believe it. That alone is the only book that claims he did exist. That is why your example does not fly. Who's trying to prove Jesus? Who's trying to prove anything? Guess you guys have forgotten that we are here to DISCUSS. Just a casual chat about religious beliefs. No one's trying to prove anything, just purely share our different beliefs. It doesn't matter what you think you're doing, Jeannie still called it correctly. You example doesn't fly. Comparing a belief in people for which there is overwhelming independent evidence for, with a mythological character that is only mentioned in a single mythological story that even contains outrageous unrealistic claims, is an invalid comparison as Jeannie points out. And that falls under the category of mere DISCUSSION. Besides, you were also talking about FAITH. Does it really matter whether someone credits the discovers that Albert Einstein made with him, or some Joe Blow? I don't think it would change a thing. So there's really need 'need" to have FAITH that Albert Einstein ever lived. We have the knowledge he discovered and it's been verified to be true without a shadow of a doubt. Where would a "need" for FAITH come into play unless you merely wanted to believe in something that we don't have proof of. Like the idea that Zeus was the Father of Hercules. If that's important to you, then yes, you would need to have FAITH in that relationship because clearly it can't be proven. FAITH is for people who "need" to believe in something that they can't know to be true. In all reality there is tons of evidence for Jesus as well. The bible is merely a collection of a few books. Some books/knowledge we have was not included in the bible(s). The pope and a few other decided what would be included in the bible and what didn't seem important to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence is not needed. The ONLY one that can prove God to you is yourself. The only one that can prove anything to you is yourself. I can not prove to you planet Earth has gravity less you test it for yourself. I can not prove to you water freezes as a certain degree less you test it yourself. Again, no one can prove to you God is real and or what God is the true God but yourself. Cowboy...evidence is required that God exist beyond a book....it's just that you don't have any evidence..that's why it's called a "belief" .. a belief needs no evidence beyond faith ...the truth does You can not prove the world is round beyond a book. You can not prove the world is covered by a lot of water without a book You can not prove anything not immediately right in front of someone without a book. What does it being in a book have to do with anything? I think you guys are using the phrase 'beyond a book' in different ways. Cowboy, I believe you are saying "you can't prove X without intermediary sources, or indirect evidence, such as one might find in a book". I think Funches was saying 'you can't prove God exists as more than a fictional character in a book' I could be wrong. That is same thing I was saying as well. You can not prove the world is round beyond a book. You can not prove the world is covered by a lot of water beyond a book Same thing as him saying I can not prove God beyond a book. Nothing but something immediately seen/felt can be proven beyond a book. You can not prove to me these things definitely without any form of doubt beyond a book. You can not positively show these things beyond a book. No they are very different things, We can prove the world is round beyone a book, from the pictures that have been taken and the fact that men have flown around it.. The same as water it is there in front of us to see and feel so it is also out of the book. But God, is in the book, but there is nothing concrete to hold onto. I think tthat is what funches is saying I dont mean you cant hold onto his word or even him, but there is nothing real that you can lok at and see, or feel and hold once you shut the book. And yes we can argue that we can feel God but that is then just ignoring what funches is saying because we all know what he means. And its really not explainable which is where faith comes in.. so once again we go in circles. finally someone that understands....or atleast not wiling to deny the logic behind what I posted.....but yes I'm not even disputing God's existence because I acknowledge that God does exist as a character in a book and that there is undisputable evidence of this, ...I simply ask for undisputable proof that God exist beyond that character in the book ...or just admit there is none and this is why a belief in God is just that.....a belief ...because no one can provide any undisputable evidence that God exist beyond a book, mind or faith You are just to smart for your own good. Yep you are right, AGAIN I have a strong BELIEF in God..I have read about him in a BOOK.. I have a strong FAITH. There is absolutly nothing concrete that i can do to show you he is real. I cant even show myself. it is just my personal BELIEF which is why I never push it onto someone else, as i cannot prove it, I can show I love Jesus by my actions, but ultimately I will never be able to live up to peoples expectations. Why because people are unrealistic, They are a little like a dog with a bone, once they get a hold of something they just dont let go. There will always be something they can see in my life that is wrong. And really the Bible can so easily be turned around , so that it can be used to hurt people. In the wrong peoples hands it is a horrid thing as they can excuse anything they do by twisting the words in it.. There are millins of peole who blindly believe what people tell them the Bible says,They never question what someone says that God said. Well that is just another form of stupidity. Bummer I have wandered off track again. Yes you are right , there is no proof beyond what a book says or people feel. and yes as you said the bible can be used for both good and evil .....which is why it should only be read but not weld upon others because then it becomes evil an example of this was in the book "Lords of The Rings" ...the ring wasn't good nor evil....but those that attempted to weld the ring to do good would whine up actually doing evil and wouldn't have a clue that they were doing evil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 04/22/11 07:22 AM
|
|
In all reality there is tons of evidence for Jesus as well. The bible is merely a collection of a few books. Some books/knowledge we have was not included in the bible(s). The pope and a few other decided what would be included in the bible and what didn't seem important to them. You have what you consider to be 'tons of evidence' of Jesus' life but you don't need any of that because we are just having a DISCUSSION. We don't expect you to produce any evidence or try to prove anything to us. We have already seen and heard all of the evidence and we have already made our decision. We are claiming that your 'evidence' is not good enough evidence for us. I am glad you feel it is good enough for you to believe. I am simply not convinced. That's just me. And this is just a DISCUSSION. I don't want or need to see any of your evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[In all reality there is tons of evidence for Jesus as well. The bible is merely a collection of a few books. Some books/knowledge we have was not included in the bible(s). The pope and a few other decided what would be included in the bible and what didn't seem important to them. Cowboy...that Jesus exist is not in dispute because let's face it people exist....well supposedly what's in dispute are the claims that people make about Jesus ....like he's the sired son of God ...of that Jesus Loves you such claims exist in a book but there is no undisputable proof beyond the book that these claims are true |
|
|
|
|
